the healthiest people in the world to start with. the group is called the gulf region outreach program it's goal to expand capacity to health care services, including primary care and environmental medicine in these gulf coast communities. it is developed jointly by b.p. and the council and it is part of the settlement that you have heard about it. $7.6 billion may sound like a small amount it is a very significant piece of money. i would not be as definite as i'm going to be until last week when the judge signed off on the settlement that did include this. i will put a disclaimer on, there is one month that an appeal could come through and change things but we feel comfort with going forward with

what i'm describing. the beneficiaries that are targeted underserved communities in louisiana, mississippi, alabama, and the florida panhandle. there are four components to this. the first is a program serving the developing improved community health programs. it is run by louisiana public health institute joined with the alliance institute which is a community-based organization. there is a mental and behavioral health program which has louisiana state university, southern mississippi university, the university of south alabama and the university of west florida. there is a literacy program

which includes a washington- based group. that's got the literacy aimed at the literacy of the community and the community workers and those involved in with community activism and community projects. finally, there is a community health worker training program that is based at the university of south alabama. the overall goal here is one where resilience comes up in the language all the time but the resilience is very much in keeping with what we would do in public health. yesterday there was a meeting held at e.p.a. by the e.p.a.

concerning resilience. you will hear a presentation later in this conference as to the outcome of it. i was taken by a couple of comments. one comment was system evolves in diminished resilience. think about that as terms of individuals. we're evolving to the point of aging and that is what we've done. you mention the immune system, i hope you all have flu shots. right? but those of us in my age range need the flu shot more than younger, healthier people do because we're more at risk. the whole risk issue for individuals, the vulnerability issue is what we deal with in public health in trying to improve the ability to respond to problems. we think of it in terms of

primary, second, tertiary prevention. tertiary is the third when you go to the doctor and you already have the sickness. this will be a five-year effort. we have -- it is not a research program but does have a strong evaluation component to it. we hope that out of this approach we will learn more about resilience of communities in relation to being able to deal with health threats and dealing with the social capital that plays a major role in community response but how can that be built up in working with the public infrastructure and working with communities to improve public resilience. >> thank you. i think we would all agree that it has been tough the last 10 to 15 years for the state of

louisiana. whether they are related to the demographics, the characteristics of the community, the geographic location. also the entrance to one of the great waterways to the world and the traffic we depend upon for the viability of the country. i want to thank him for the work that he has done when i was down there. go ahead. >> thank you. it is better to see you under better circumstances. if you think resiliency is a challenge try having access to the food we have and staying healthy. it is difficult. in terms of how we address the

resiliency and the issues we deal with in the coast and trying to tie that to the tax base and relate that both from a local regional perspective but also a national perspective. when you look at it, 30% of this nation's g.d.p. comes from the gulf coast. you look at the population increase we've had. since 1970, there has been 109% increase in the gulf coast region. the people are there, the vulnerabilities are there but also it is significant to what it provides to the nation. from the states perspective and also from the gulf we recognize that healthy ecosystems also can mean healthy economies. from louisiana, what we have taken -- what we believe is a

very good first effort the addressing the vulnerabilities that exist in reducing that risk is with the state's matter of fact plan which is a long- term plan to reduce the economic significance and reduce the risk across the coast. we believe we can achieve protection for all coastal communities. it is that resource that is important. the states provide and the gulf provides to the nation, it if it is going to be afforded through the nation. we believe with this plan we can have sustainable healthy ecosystems but also healthy communities. there's an essence of -- there is a form of social engineering because if you can't ensure the communities, the supermarket, the schools, the things that the communities depend on, the communities will not survive.

we want to make sure we will develop a healthy system but also healthy communities that can provide those resources. we have come a long way, it is not perfect but we have a plan to achieve this sustainability and protecting the communities long term that are critical to the region and to the nation. i think is something we're working with the other gulf states in light of what happened with the oil spill. unfortunately, that event will provide some resource, it won't be enough but putting those resources that he mentioned, making sure we're putting those to good use and thinking long- term to address those problems and to reduce the risk to protect the ecosystems and the economies. >> i think what we fail to understand is sometimes these

issues whether they are long- term are difficult, complex problems are usually beyond the bounds of one particular agency to solve on their own. in addressing these problems or black swans whatever you want to call them is the future of leadership that is required in government today. marcia mcnutt has worked with me for many, many occasions, most notably during the oil spill. you're looking at one of the fine leaders that worked with the government to make decisions matter and make the difficult decisions. i'm proud to work with her during the oil spill and i'm proud to introduce her now. marcia? >> thank you. the gulf coast is under threats

and in particular, i want to speak of those that impact life and property. it is a deadly combination of loss of natural protection, rising seas from global warming, increasing intensity and number of storms, and more people and critical infrastructure that lies in the coastal zone in the path of those storms. there's no doubt but the coastal zone is a desirable but it is a dangerous place to live and it is getting more dangerous all the time. so what is the solution? well, the good news is that research can help. let me provide you with an analogy. we know that fault zones are dangerous places to live but thanks to science we have increased more than two orders of nag any attitude the safety of living in earthquake country.

that fact was demonstrated by the different experiences in death and destruction in haiti where earthquake resiliency is nonexistent and chile that took its playbook from california. that's why i'm optimistic that science and engineering calls make the coastal zone a safer place to live. there are important differences between the problem of earthquake hazards and coastal hazards. if we put aside those bumper stickers that say stop plate tectonics. humans have an effect on the rate and the intensity of earthquakes. on the other hand, we have increased coastal hazards by

increasing the rate of wetland loss barrier island erosion and sea level rise. what this means in addressing coastal hazards we need to confront both mother nature and the enhanced risk from impacts. i would argue the philosophy we have to approach this with is exactly the same. scientists can make recommendations on issues such as what is the recurrence rate of the threat. what are the effects that the threat pose to our lives and our property. what actions do we need to take to mitigate those threats? engineers can take the input from the scientists and design appropriate structures and carry out the mitigation projects. in the earthquake case, it was put of the hands of local

communities to voluntarily take those recommendations from the scientists and engineers and into building standards and with those actions ultimately saves lives and property. i expect a similar approach would be appropriate in the coastal zone. the settlement from the oil spill gives an opportunity for the region a new lease on life. top fund science in other words too the right things and engineering in other words to do the things right. we should not squander this opportunity on projects that won't make a lasting difference. thank you. >> thank you, marcia. one comment that crosses through all of the discussions that have occurred thus far, it is this notion of communicating the conditions that exist --

exist today. the importance of resilience where we can change behaviors. trying to protect school children until california there is a drill that brings in the community but it started with school children. we need to learn how to have a large conversation about how to understand these issues, how to communicate them to the public. there is always risk to communication but there has to be risk and an understanding of the behaviors that are needed to mitigate these events before they occur. going forward, i think that is the next important conversation we need to have. i saw something collecting question cards and he is running up here right now. in the long-term can there be

resiliency in the gulf systems that was pointed without with massive population growth? you want to start with that one? >> i would love to. there is never going to be a silver bullet fix it and forget it to this problem. we believe, again, addressing those things that we can achieve, using the river, and using the things that built the delta. mitigating the risk, building stronger, building smarter we can mitigate. if we use the tools we have we do believe, even with the increased population that we do have and the desire for people to live along the coast because of the fact that the access and resources it provides we have the capability.

we demonstrated it with the master plan. the way we are going to achieve it we have to take from a federal perspective more proactive approach. if you look at it, for every dollar invested in terms of mitigating translates to $11 up to $30 per dollar in investment. if there are things that we can do proactively that will reduce that risk and creates sustainability for communities and for the ecology as well for those resources. in the master plan we laid it out and it is a plan that will be modified and tweak but the answer is yes, we can do things that will allow us to survive and live along the coast. >> nancy, make you can address the facet second of this. what can you do going forward. like in the lower part of the

mississippi where you have 40 miles of a strip of land that is half a mile wide. is there a threshold that the islands are going to migrate and how do we have a discussion of is this the right place for people to live? >> certainly. as more and more people come to the coast more and more people want to live on the coast. i think we have to take a very strong attitude about where people can live and where they and can't live. there were floods on the mississippi river and they moved people out of the flood open plain and now they are building in the floodplain and that doesn't make sense. the state of texas is proactive in what was land has become open water after several hurricanes.

we need to protect the people that are there. we need to provide alternatives for them. if it looks like their homes are going to be under water, the lab where i work is outside of any levee system. and the water level gets higher and higher with every hurricane we've had. to we all know we're going have more. we need to think into the future and not 30 years because we have to take care of the place where people want to live and provide the safety for them at the same time. >> any other comments or i'll go to the next question. would you comment on the progress in implementing the b.p. plan? are there institutions in place that does not make priority projects and monitor their

progress. >> there are certainly are institutions in place and there are plans in place. there have been entities designated in leadership roles and there have been plenty of good ideas put forward. i think maybe jerry can comment more on what the progress has been on those but some of the principles i've seen put forward, i think are excellent. for example, just to comment on one of them, i'm very much in line with is that to the extent that we can restore natural processes. for example, during the gulf

spill, the governor of louisiana, i think, you know, his heart was in the right place when he wanted to construct some barrier islands in other words to stop oil from coming ashore. but the problem with it was, unless you restore natural processes to nourish those islands it was going to be a very expensive undertaking that was going to be very short- lived. there was the chance that the construction of the islands would do more harm in the short temperature than the long term effect of the islands. in the projects that are being proposed they have a sound science under lying them which has at its foundation that natural processes have to be at

the -- under pinning these such that they will have long duration that the restoration will continue and you don't just build something to see it all go away again. >> i think there was some science in the respect that what they were trying to achieve with what the natural system would have achieved. the barrier island would have stopped the oil from getting into the sensitive ecosystem. thee trying to achieve connection to the river. during the oil spill, we opened some of the limited diversion, just small diversions which had a ben official impact but significance in terms of our ability to rebuild or connect to the delta is insignificant. so we're prosing long-term sustainable diversions that can rebuild and sustain the coast of louisiana. part of the issue too is also

trying to address the disconnect that we currently have between the largest unfunded mandate the nation faces outside of social security is the flood insurance program. we're going to have to address long-term how we're going top continue that program and the disconnect within the agency that carries out a lot of the programs which is can core of engineers which is responsible for achieving those protection measures and the process you have to go through to build these protection measures. it is a process that has to be changed. there are issues that we can under take to increase resiliency. in addition, the natural system is critical from the gulf perspective from protection to the communities themselves but also sustaining the ecosystems. we can and there are plans to achieve that benefit. >> i think also one final

comment on this. restoration, all of the projects are by necessity have to be a compromise between the existing economics of the gulf coast and the ideal restoration. because we have the oil and gas infrastructure and we have the requirement to maintain the shipping channels. so there is the -- ideal and restoration would be to allow the mississippi to meander the way it did before there was an attempt to control the river. there was the much lower loss of wetlands before there was all the development in oil and

gas. we know we will never again go back to that totally natural state. where do we find the dividing line between the appropriate line of restoration that will get us back to those natural states that provided more sentiment delivery to the coast and more natural protection for the wetlands? and yet, provide the economic for the coast in terms of the shipping channels and the protection from floods and the oil and gas industry that we know is also important to the people of the gulf. >> at the risk of plugging a book here. when i was working at hurricane katrina every time i had a new person come into my staff i had them read a book called "rising tide."

it is the history of how the mississippi river was changed to accommodate navigation and the impacts of the 1927 flood and it created some of the conditions that was a result of hurricane katrina. from our learning of the gulf, what would you to help community that will face disasters. what would you do for low income communities but will face disasters especially with potential for hydrocracking. >> that is of a good question. from a health point of view, what we have learned, is a psychosocial impact. it has to do with all sorts of things with our willingness to

share the truth, which could be one of the most telling problems that came out of the gulf. if i asked for a show of hands, how many are concerned about the fact there was a secret ingredient in all this? how many of you have ever taken an over-the-counter laxatives? it turns out that confidential business agreement is over the counter. i am not worried about human exposure to that particular chemical. there was no reason for the

secrecy. we are getting a bunch of confidential issue, but i find what is fascinating is the stuff that is coming from underground. they say notwithstanding any of the above, we do not tell them about reactions. that just adds to the fears, adds to the concerns. i am not saying there are no affects in the gulf. the reviewers were concerned we are not saying enough about how

many people will keep benzene. the effects are real, and i think that is what we need to whir gone. -- work on. >> i have always tried to use the standard of transparency as a way to deal with the public. the problem is if you'd inadvertently did not disclose information, you are put out a credibility deficit with the public, and sometimes it is hard to get out of that, and it is difficult for or organizations to think about releasing the information before it is out for. -- asked for. i have been involved in several

situations where the information was available and understandable. it mitigated some concerns. it was difficult to make that transparent, and catching up with that is really difficult. one reason for the impact was the lack of information as a baseline for understanding there had been a change. as a context for moving beyond the research done, what do you think the larger research agenda ought to be about? >> the hydrocarbons in the continental shelf and inland areas are pretty well known. it is the deep sea we did not have information for. i think the deep sea ecosystem

is an area we need to emphasize, and some of the longer living organisms such as marine mammals. one of the issues is the effect of multiple stressors. we have some smart jury is that were heavily oiled, and some of them are not there anymore post hurricane isaac, so the idea of these multiple stressors that work on a habitat. i am on a panel on the effects of the bp oil spill on ecosystem services. i think that is one area we need to look at.

>> what nancy said, i would underscore the idea of understanding natural capital and its impact on the human economy. the effect of multiple stressors on the system so we can understand what more impact would be. another thing i have seen is after the oil spill there were concerns but would come out of the fishing community, and whether recreational or

commercial sometimes when they would notice there were abnormalities in species that would be found in some ketches, and they would not know whether they could positively attributed to affects of the oils spill, because there were not a baseline condition is taken before the spill. i think for important ecosystems or any other ecosystem, we need to have baseline conditions of what is the state of health of that ecosystem and what is the occurrence of abnormalities

before any untoward event occurs. >> the long term data are incredibly important, and we also need to continue monitoring in the period to learn more about the ecosystem. there are a lot of contaminants in the marshes, a lot of background information. the important thing is you never have the opportunity to know what is going to happen in a place you have not been monitoring. there has to be a strategic method to find those places because you cannot do it everywhere. you need a model condition to

spend time on a particular area and translate those results to another area. >> my personal opinion is there is a latency between human activity and our ability to understand we need to understand the area, and we always come in after the fact and try to determine what the parameters are for that system. i do not know how you get the match set up because it involves a crosswalk, and it is one of the responsibilities of government and it extends into the international environment, which makes it more complex, but let me use that as a segue. we know and hear about economic impact repeatedly, but who speaks for the environment, and

how can we keep that the boys drowned out as a difference for -- voice from being drowned out as a result of a difference of relationships? how do we close the cycle of latency and try to understand where we need information? >> let me start with a comment you made, which i found to be fascinating, that there is between a $11 and $30 for every dollar spent. an ounce of prevention is worth every cure. that is a 16 fold ratio. we know that. our policy has to put that in place. we need a baseline. of course we do. the only thing forcing the baseline is smart companies, and they may as well get a baseline, because they will show

we started which dirty water, but there are no resources to get the baseline. we know we need to drill the northeast over the next couple days. -- decades. we need that baseline. we need it desperately, and we needed for human health as well. lots of different communities have different kinds of diseases. they come in clusters. when there is a group of kids with autism or adults with pancreatic cancer, somebody is going to say, we did not have that until the drill rig went up there? we need to have the debate. you get the lawyers involved. you try to do a retrospective

at exposure study. it is too hard. we need a baseline study that includes human health parameters so we can see if it has changed. >> you want to say something? >> i think it is important to place a value on ecosystem services. there is of value to the ecosystem and the resources that depend upon those ecosystems, and we need to address what the value is. there is of value to the fisheries and all the things that are important but we depend on but have value, and until we can develop that appreciation and use that, it is going to be important to use that in how we are going to send that message. >> how confident are we about

the causes of the gulf dead zone and what we can do change it? >> the scientific consensus is increase in nutrient loading over the last decade or so has led to increased primary production in the gulf and worsening hypoxia, the area that is getting larger and sometimes more severe, so there is a direct linkage between what happens and in the gulf of mexico, whether it is contaminants, e. coli, it all affects the coastal system. as far as the science, it is very clear. these changes have happened in

our recent past, not over geologic time and did not occur at the turn of the last century and the early 1900's, and we know that from a geologic records. we know the issue is to generate a willingness for both political and social will to make changes in the watershed, many of them directed at agriculture practices. the usgs has determined most of the nitrogen and phosphorous come from those sources but also make land-use and land architect changes that can be made in artificial wetlands, allowing them to put it away from us.

i think it is getting going. >> back to the comments about the mississippi river, i think when you have is a multiplier of sex that were not intended at -- multiplier effects that were not intended at the start. you basically made an escape route for the majority of the water. when you made was a place to shoot that into one place and keep putting it there. we are seeing a combined affect of decisions that in some cases were made a century ago. >> if people want more missouri water to come in, but all the dams and reservoirs are where a lot of the sentiment is stored,

so there is a lot of competing interest for the use of this distributor a. >> i have something to clarify regarding the investment of $11 versus $30. >> it depends on which parameters you use, but based upon flow protection measures and would have been in place that equates to a reduction in risk. it equated suit hundreds of millions of dollars if not for the measures put in place, so it depends on what you look at, but it is primarily on what

they could make in the risk and what it translates to on the benefit it would provide. >> i am going to combine a couple of questions, and that is given the things we have talked about, increased population density, issues involving resiliency, is there some threshold we should consider rebuilding after events like katrina or the storms we have had encountered? >> the question is should we rebuild. from a local perspective i would answer that we should. it is not only from the local perspective but from the national perspective. in terms of the resources it provides for the nation but also our ability to sustain

those resources and provide those to the nation, affording the communities that provide those resources to warrant protection, and we can demonstrate how we can build more resilience communities, but we can also provide a natural buffer. the thing that completely changed the hydrology and the building of the delta, which cause a precipitous drop of wetlands we experienced, we are getting it from both ends. the plan we put together recognizes that. we believe in the next 50 years we can develop a plan and develop a way to create a sustainable ecosystem and a sustainable coast to the nation. >> i like my job, so this is

where i pass the microphone on fracking. not really. i already stated we need to make hard decisions about when we can do and what the mississippi can do for us good and bad now and think about the future and take care of the people in some way. some farmers have suggested shrimpers should find a new way to make a living, and that does not sit well with me, but times are changing, and we have to be able to keep up with it and anticipate it. >> the question is is there a

threshold. we say, of course there is a threshold. you could not move 100 million people without destroying people. there is some level you cannot keep to it, but it is a threshold with different vulnerabilities, and vulnerabilities change with time. what the threshold is will depend upon vulnerabilities and resilience, and that is how much you are able to build in the gulf is dependent upon how resilience you are going to be, and the resiliency is created to go about doing the things we need to do. >> i am going to speak right now as an earth scientist with the perspective of the time, not

as director of usgs. as someone with a perspective of deep time, this is how the earth works. people should not live below sea level, and the seas are rising. here is what happens. it is not the gradual rise of sea level but is going to get anyone. it is the combination of extreme events superimposed on the gradual rise of sea levels, and the extreme events that destroy our natural protection, and here is what we saw with superstorm sandy. there were some amazing predictions done by hillary stockton, who is a scientist who looked up the barrier dunes

along the northeast coast, and she predicted x marks the start with amazing accuracy of exactly which dunes would be breached and where the storm was going to go right through and inundates the coast. because of how good the models have become. and she did another prediction after the storm of because of the loss of barrier islands, because how much they eroded, how much protection they offer now going into the future for future storms, and it turns out now for the next storm, even if it is not a superstar, even if it is a run-of-the-mill

nor'easter, a number of breaches and inland coastal flooding will be widespread for the northeast because of the loss of that protection, so we have crossed already a threshold, even though sea level has not increased a lot between last october and now just because of superstorm sandy. superstorm sandy was a threshold for the northeast, and we crossed it. >> marcia will be heading to monterey after her service, so i want to congratulate her and thank her. [applause] >> thanks for a phenomenal session and wonderful insights.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> a look back at the president's 2009 inaugural speech, sunday at 10:30 eastern. the official swearing-in is just before noon. monday, the public inaugural ceremony, with the swearing in at noon at the u.s. capitol and the parade later in the day. live coverage begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern. on c-span, c-span radio, and c- span.org. >> the greatest honor history can bestow is the title of peacemaker. this honor now beckons america. the chance to help lead the world at last out of the valley of turmoil and on to the high ground of peace that man has dreamed of since the dawn of

civilization. >> we must work on the apollo program, promoting the benefit of our progress available for the improvement and growth. >> this meeting and, public radio's back story with the american history died. the history and traditions of presidential inaugurations. live a saturday morning at 11:00 a.m. eastern. on c-span 3. >> next, a conversation on the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. we will hear from a constitutional law professor adam winkler. from the johns hopkins school of public health in baltimore. this is about 20 minutes. >> he is certainly one of the great emerging voices, insightful and influential of

the nature of the meaning of the second amendment in the wake of the supreme court's decision, so thank you for joining me in this effort. i want to thank the organizers, everyone from the president down to staff that has organized a terrific and hopefully impact full conference. i am not going to talk with any power. as a law professor i do not like the focus on anyone but me. i am here to talk about the amendment to the constitution and what it says about major reform proposals being considered in the wake of the new town massacre. as you probably know, the second amendment provides a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

it is almost as if james madison just discovered this wonderful new thing, the comma, and wanted to put it in there as many times as possible, and is as confused americans as they try to figure out what was meant by this cryptic amendments, breaking up ideas. a sure sign of this confusion comes from a lot of the public statements we have seen since president barack obama said it was time for meaningful action to reduce gun violence, because what we have seen this many people argue the president is taking away our rights. i call this confusion, because many people apparently have not

been reading the court cases that interpret the second amendment and tell us what it means. as larry and i argue in our contribution, the most popular proposals being considered today are likely constitutional. that is not to say there are not any questions about any of them, but they are likely to be upheld by the supreme court should they be enacted. from background checks to restrictions on sale of high- capacity magazines and even a ban on assault weapons, we think it is likely the supreme court will uphold these provisions. in defense of those who do seem confused about the nature of our second amendment rights, the supreme court has not done a great job of clarifying what

is the scope of our second amendment rights. as most of you know, in 2008, the supreme court held that the second amendment protects the right of individuals to have guns for personal protection. two years after that case, it struck down a lot in washington, d.c., that banned handguns and made it unlawful for you to use a shotgun or rifle for self-defense. two years after that the supreme court held the second amendment similarly applied to state and local governments and effectively declared chicago's ban on handguns unconstitutional. advocates make it clear exactly how the courts should go about interpreting the second

amendment and applying it to other gun-control laws. it is one thing to identify a right in the constitution, but where the rubber hits the road is figuring out which laws are constitutional and which laws are unconstitutional, so they asked the supreme court to adopt clear standards so they can apply the second amendment in the tidal wave of lawsuits but was sure to come if the supreme court found that an individual right to bear arms. the tidal wave came, but the clarity did not. we have seen a huge number of cases, a little more than 300 federal court decisions on constitutionality of a wide variety of gun-control laws since 2008, and they refuse to articulate a clear standard of review and said, we will address the questions as they come about, but the supreme court did provide some guidance as to the nature and meaning of

the second amendment and how to approach gun-control questions. the court said it was not a right to have any gun anytime, anywhere you wanted. it was not a libertarian license for you to have whatever gun you choose to have. the supreme court made clear the second amendment is not unlimited, and looking at history and tradition as guideposts, the supreme court recognized many gun-control laws have been upheld under this amendment over american history. they pointed out the majority upheld restrictions on concealed ann curry firearms. fog-- concealed carry of firearms. the court also said not everything that could be

considered restrictions on concealed firearms. this included weapons in use for common purposes, not dangerous and unusual weapons like machine guns, and perhaps the most important question, the supreme court said nothing should be taken to cast out longstanding provisions. when you think about it, that counters probably the majority of gun control laws. the court said all of these laws are lawful, and pointed out this list was not meant to be exhaustive and pointed out there are other measures law enforcement can take. with this limited guidance the lower courts have confronted this tidal wave. i mention 300 cases today, but only a small fraction of those

federal court cases have invalidated the challenged laws. the vast majority of gun- control laws have been upheld and rely on the decisions. we are seeing an emerging framework for analyzing gun- control laws that has become the norm in the majority of circuits that have addressed the issue. it is essential for the courts to undertake a two-step process in analyzing constitutionality of a gun control law. they determine if a particular law being challenged, if that burdens activities within the scope of the second amendment. the court said the corps' second amendment right is the right to have a functional firearm in the home. not everyone can be said to fall within the scope of the second amendment.

for instance, bans on felons or the mentally ill. that obviously restricts the right for someone to have a gun in their home for self-defense, but a court suggests that felons and mentally ill are outside the scope of the second amendment. they do not have a right to have a firearm in their home for self-defense. they are outside the second amendment. a lot of courts have universally held restrictions on guns, possessions of guns by people with restraining orders are also constitutional. many of those courts have said those people are outside the scope of the second amendment, so the law did not burden second amendment rights at all in these cases. we might also think of restrictions on machine guns or silencers, which are not thought to be arms under the purposes of the second amendment, not typically used for self-defense purposes and

not subject to the second amendment dispute. if some activity is regulated by a lot like a ban on silencers or machine guns, the law is upheld, and the case is over. if a law does burden activity under the second amendment, the court asks the second question, and i ask how severe is that? they determine if the law is sufficiently well-designed to serve the government ends. this has two steps, weighing the burden and analysis of ends and means. is the law well-designed to meet those needs?

how is a lot of burden? if it nullifies the right to have a functional firearm in the home, it is likely invalid, no matter what, so we have seen handgun bans in washington, d.c., and chicago struck it down. as they apply to law abiding citizens, a law that bans people from having access to these weapons is unconstitutional. maybe restrictions from having firearms in public housing is

likely to be the type of law courts would say is a severe burden on second amendment rights and likely invalid. very minor burdens, not a significant burden at all, but the court would say it is likely the government does not need especially strong reasons to uphold such a law. these might be thought of as incidental burdens. it is often the case you can restrict our rights with what are known as incidental burdens as a way to ensure those who exercise the rights are entitled, so sometimes you will hear that is not how we treat the first amendment. treatthink about how we the right to vote for the right to marry. those fundamental rights are protected by our constitution. the court says you can require people to register so they can vote.

you can require people to get a license before they get married. these are incidental burden is the supreme court says that do not stop people from exercising the right to vote or getting married. where the law is an intermediate burden, little justification has been made. the vast majority of gun control laws fall within the middle ground. they are not a severe burden, and they are not an incidental burden. they fall within the middle range, and courts say where a law does burden the second amendment they are under scrutiny. independent scrutiny is used throughout international law. it basically asks two questions. for the law to survive it has to substantially further a government interest. the government interest has to be when imported government interest, and the law has to further about -- has to be an important government interest, and the law has to further that.

the important government interest is public safety, reduction of gun violence. these are some of the most compelling interest the government can have, and when intermediate scrutiny is applied, even burdens on one's right to have a firearm, the first prong of intermediate scrutiny is easily met. to answer the second question, does this law substantially further the interested public safety, courts look to see did lawmakers have adequate evidence to support the idea this law would further public safety? that is why so much work being

done at this conference is important with regard to what happens with gun-control in the future. in new york one of the houses passed a major gun-control law. i am sure it will be challenged under the second amendment, and it is the research produced the help satisfy the courts there is a substantial relationship between a gun control and reform and reduction of public safety. how does this emerging affect apply to these proposals? we might think of universal background checks. closing the gun show loophole, it is a private sale loophole

person to person sales to occur without a background check. does this burden protect a second amendment activity? not likely. it serves as a simple screen that is used to determine who is entitled to exercise this right and who is not entitled to exercise the rights. very much equivalent to what we see with the right to vote. it requires people to register in advance, and the burden is most likely to be an incidental burden just like registration requirements. it is not a severe burden on a gun purchaser. it happens quickly without much trouble. even if the burden is thought to

be more severe, this law is well designed to deprive criminals and the mentally ill access to firearms. according this requirement matches of the recognition of the legitimacy of laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of firearms. what about assault weapons? to determine if assault weapons are arms protected by the second amendment, we need to know if the firearms are in common use or if they are dangerous and unusual weapons. that was a dichotomy set up by the united states supreme court. if they are in common use like handguns we have to go to the second step of the analysis. if they are dangerous and unusual weapons like machine gun, the analysis would stop there. assault weapons are pretty commonplace.

they become popular and firearms in a gun rights community. there are apparently tens of millions of these firearms out there, arguably they are commonly used, but one argument is while they are common they are not commonly used for the core purpose of the second amendment, self-defense. they are poor self-defense weapons. it is hard to maneuver in the home, and projectiles are propelled of such a rate they are likely to pose dangers and who people as they go through walls, endangering family members or neighbors. if that is right, assault weapons would not be thought to be within the scope of the second amendment, and yet i should admit we talked extensively that there are some reasonable arguments you could make against an assault weapons ban. an assault weapons ban by one meaning says the gun is in common use if used for any lawful purpose, and if that is the case they are generally used for unlawful purposes. an assault weapons ban might not satisfy the demands, might not further the government's interest in public safety, given that they are rarely used in crime, and the law adopted now mirrors and now the 1994 assault weapons ban, that was notorious for loopholes. i think the government could

have difficulty defending such a law. i should say the highest court in the country to consider an assault weapons ban today was the d.c. circuit, and it upheld such a ban. the court assumed the weapons were in common use, but the ban imposed no real burden on the ability to have a firearm in self-defense. similar analysis would go to do restrictions on high-capacity magazines. would those capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to be unconstitutional? it is a similar case. are they using? are they for self-defense? the same case upheld the sale of high-capacity magazines. yes, they are in common use. there are millions out there. however, the court said self- defense does not require more than 10 rounds of ammunition. there remains issues of whether this substantially furthers government interests. recent data suggest the 1994

ban did have an impact, but the rate at which high-capacity magazines were recovered who appears to have recovered significantly in the wake of the lot and increase dramatically after the law was inspired. in my book i tried to show there is a long history of gun- control in america. gun-control is not the modern 20th-century invention many tell us. the right to keep and bear arms has not historically been thought to be a significant limit on reasonable gun-control laws short of disarmament. today the impediment remains congress, not the supreme court. the court has made clear many forms of gun control, including the various proposals being considered in washington today, to not offend the second amendment. thank you.

[applause] >> thank you very much. our last presentation of the day, we have dr. colleen barry.

>> more from the gun violence summit at john hopkins university. next a look of public opinion on gun-control laws. this is 35 minutes. >> it is an honor to say i am a faculty member here at johns hopkins and a member of this extraordinary community. before i begin, the title of my talk is public opinion on proposals to strengthen u.s. gun laws, and i want to acknowledge my wonderful collaborators on this work. i think nobody in this room or maybe on the johns hopkins campus is unfamiliar with my collaborators, who have done such fabulous work in the context of this summit but also on this specific study done in

a very short timeframe. many of you might not know he is emblematic of the kind of students that are extraordinary. she is the fourth year doctoral student in our ph.d. program, and i think it is fair to say without her talents and involvement in this project it would not have occurred, so thank you. >> i think i may be the only speaker presenting research and who is not an expert on gun policy and gun violence. my expertise is on health policy and substance-abuse policy. i also spent a lot of time thinking about and conducting public opinion and research and have interest in research methods. as the context i became involved in the work of this summit. i think with things that caught my attention in the weeks following the sandy hook

tragedy was as we saw public opinion data come out on this, the majority of polling and research was asking questions about the general attitude from the public. does the public support stricter or less strict gun laws? those perceptions about the nra and relatively little information in the early weeks, no information about american attitudes and support for specific policy proposals, and i think in this fast-paced environment of policy deliberations over this issue, it is critical to understand how the public thinks about specific proposals to strengthen gun laws. we live in a democracy. we should care about what our public things, and we should bring the best research methods

to bear on identifying the level of support in the public overall but also to understand how support may vary across some groups in our society, so this is what we did. we designed a data collection instrument to determine support for 33 policies among americans overall by gun ownership and stratified by political party identification, and to get gun ownership, most of the survey were is your typical thousand person poll, and it is hard to give precise estimates using an approach for smaller subgroups within opinion polls, so we over sampled gun owners and non gun owners living in households with guns. we have basically the find the survey. we apologized where do we basically define the survey

over christmas. we apologize to our family members. the survey was designed between the 24 and 27. we programmed it. what i am going to present is preliminary data, and there is basically an interim data set, but the results do not change based on distribution of responses. i do not think the results will defer when we do the final analysis by more than a percentage point. the survey that did this does a ton of work across academic disciplines, and they have been a great partner for us entering this over a short time frame, so i want to acknowledge them. they have a probability-based very large web panel, which is

a great dancer in the current environment to some of the serious challenges related to conducting telephone research. our results related to the share of gun ownership is consistent, within a percentage point of the general social survey. we see 33% of americans reported having a gun in their home or their garage, and that breaks down into two groups. 22% of americans personally identify as gun owners, an 11% of americans identify as non- gun owners living in a household with a gun. that means 67% of americans identified as non gun owners living in non done households. i will stratify by these groups, so just to give you a sense of proportions. i am going to give you a quick rundown of the major findings of the survey, and i am going to

get into the data. we find a majority of americans support gun policies, including a ban on the sale of assault weapons, a ban on the sale of large scale magazines, a range of measures to improve oversight of gun dealers, only five of the 33 policies were supported by less than a majority of the american public. for quite a few policies, the views of non-gun owners living in households with guns were more aligned with other non-gun owners and gun owners, and for many policies the difference was smaller than expected. for me as someone who has not spent my career in this area, they were smaller than i anticipated. we have 33 policies. there is a ton of data. i am going to go through a lot of information. this is interesting information, and i am going to talk fast, so bear with me. now everything is described in terms of support.

these are assault weapons and ammunition policies. over 65% in support of the ban of assault weapons. the band of the sale of large capacity ammunition magazines that allow guns to shoot more than 10 bullets and more than 20 bullets. i want to point out a near majority or majority support for these policies, and this slide illustrates an interesting thing we saw more generally, which is support who for gun owners, which you can see the report very low levels and support for these policies. we ask about possession of assault weapons, possession of large capacity magazines, and you can see a low level of support in the american population as a whole for both of these policies in the context, and we heard about this this morning of a policy where the government is required to pay gun owners the fair market value of their weapons. here are the assault weapons and ammunition policies broken down by republicans, independents, and democrats. you can see the sales policies for the weapons. the assault weapons and magazine policies, over 50% of republicans, democrats, and independence support these policies. here are the prohibited persons policies, and this first line illustrates a very broad support among gun owners and non-gun owners for these policies, which include prohibiting a person convicted of two or more crimes involving alcohol or drugs of holding a gun, committed of domestic violence restraining order, a serious crime as a

juvenile, being on a terrorist watch list, even for a policy daniel talked about yesterday which is preventing a person under 21 from having a handgun, over 50% support among gun owners and among others. here our policies relating to a misdemeanor convictions, and you can see gun owners and non- gun owners are alike in terms of what policies they like the least, and these are two types

of misdemeanors related to drunken disorderly conduct or indecent exposure, very low levels of support across the board. here are the breakdowns by political party identification, and with the exception of the misdemeanor policies i

described, high levels of support among republicans, independents, and democrats for re are the policies relating to a background checks. the first policy is the universal are ground check. very high levels of support among non-gun owners and gun owners alike. even majority support among nra members who are gun owners as well as high levels of support for these other specific policies relating to background checks. very high support across the political party identification as well for the universal

background check policy as well as the other policies. you can see these policies -- i am going to point out this result. high support for all of these policies, majority's support among the gun owners and near majority support among nra members. i am not going to go through these policies because i am talking quickly right now, but one example is requiring a

mandatory minimum sentence of two years in prison for a person convicted of knowingly selling a gun to a person who cannot have a gun. here are the policies in terms of political party identification. here are the policies affecting those with mental illness. the first three policies our background check related policies. we have heard a lot about these policies over the last two days, and you can see the high levels of support for these policies, including among gun owners and nra members who are gun owners. the lowest levels of support for a policy allowing people who have lost the right to have a gun to to mental illness to have that right restored if they are determined to not be dangerous. this type of restoration policy is not supported at high levels by any of these subgroups. over a majority at high level of support over a policy to increase spending on mental health screening and treatment as a strategy to reduce gun violence. a majority supported across the board. here is the breakdown of these policies by political party

identification. you can see the top three background check policies are supported at high levels by republicans, independents, and democrats, but a petition to regain gun rights has the lowest level of support among all three, and for the policy to increase gun -- government spending on mental health treatment, a little bit more of a political gradient. slightly less than a majority of republicans support this policy, although it is worth noting and a question -- this is why wording is so critical -- that includes the phrase government funding for -- is going to going to cap into our phrasing. that is an important phrasing. here are the last three gun policies.

has high levels of support across forehead including a majority of gun owners. although again the same caveat in terms of using the concept of government funding. there are ways beyond government funding to increase adoption of smartphone technology. here is the policy requiring bylaw that a person locked up the guns in their home when not in use to prevent handling by kids without adult supervision and you can see a gradient of support and some difference in opinion as might be expected on this policy by gun ownership status. here are these three policies in terms of majority support by a political party identification. ok. what can we conclude from this research? first of all, we find high support among -- including among gun owners for a wide range of gun policies. the most feasible policy is from a political perspective including 20 from this list of 33 with a majority support regardless of gun ownership or political party identification. i think the bottom-line from the study as policymakers have a large range of options to choose

from which are supported by the american public. i cannot emphasize this enough for in the context of the discussions we have been having over the last couple of days related to the fact that there are multiple levels of problems here and that speaks to the need for more combined and comprehensive approach and this research suggests that kind of approach would be supported by the american public. thank you for your time. [applause] i should say for detailed information, checkout look in two weeks -- the book in two weeks. >> this was an enormously quick effort. they're also going through peer

review very quickly. daniel tells me we can invade tenets of his concluding remarks -- 10 minutes of his concluding remarks with questions for this panel. are there questions? c-span is still streaming today. maybe the microphones have gone away. here comes one. >> this is a comment. >> can you raise your voice at the end?

>> add a question. -- and a question. it is prefaced by -- what a great piece of work. i did not mean you. the research. >> only with tenure can you say things like that. >> you mentioned the importance of language. i have a stake and an interest in the question that dealt with government funding and i appreciate your -- the response may be influenced by the preface of firman funding. here's another thing that influence their response. when we did surveys a little after 2000, we did a series, four ways of random digit dial encompassing 12 -- adults representing the american population and we asked about personalized guns. we asked about personalized guns and we asked about childproof guns. i used those synonymous leave. the state of new jersey use them

as anonymously when it passed into law. we found a substantial difference, though, in the answers that we got, whether it was personalized. when we ask people, would you favor a law requiring all new guns to be personalized, there was an explanation of what that was. my recollection was it was in the mid-1960's when we asked a question with regard to child proof guns. in the general population it was 88%. when we tease out the gun owners it was 81%.

how we spin the question are phrase the question is going to be very important. >> can you hear me? i want to make a quick comment on this. those are wonderful, extremely important points and i will say yes somebody who has not spent my career in this area and i went to the research literature to find out what they prior polls -- the prior polls said. the last publication was from 1998. so long ago we need more of today, more research on public attitudes about this issue done using scare early -- scholarly research efforts.

we did this in such a short time frame. we were not able to include the questions we would have and there are many questions in the original study that were not asking the steady and that should be replicated now, i think. thank you. >> good morning. i want to ask a question about a sub-group you have not talked about. the reasonable people who buy guns for the -- for protection. is there any evidence that this makes sense? is someone invading their home with a weapon? is there a weapon in the home, our people successfully addressing home invasion? what is the evidence around

self-defense in the home? >> i will very briefly respond. david might also want to contribute. generally speaking, the data, whether you're talking about a case controlled household study design or in more ecological examination of places where there are more guns versus less guns generally show our relationship where there are more guns, there is more death including homicide.

but self-defense type of opportunities are pretty rare. david heminway has demonstrated pretty well why we should be skeptical at least of some surveys of self-defense because it is easy to be prone to exaggeration. that is what the nature of those incidents were. i want to give you an opportunity. >> let me just mention that he is a professor at the harvard school of public health and has done lots of work on permits and on the risks and benefits of gun ownership. i do not know if you have a microphone available. it looks like it is coming down here for you.

>> so what daniel said is correct. the evidence indicates a gun is a large factor for a completed suicide and also for from a side. it is dangerous for women. there is not as much evidence about a man in the home. the evidence indicates that a gun is used to intimidate somebody in the home but then to protect yourself against an intruder.

for most people it looks like the evidence is pretty strong that it is not a wise choice to have a gun in the home in terms of public health. i have a question for adam. can you talk about the second amendment and this notion of having a gun to protect us against the totalitarian dictatorship that may take over and we require the gun owners [inaudible] >> largely they were divorced from our current constitution and how it is understood. the supreme court said the core rate of protected by the second amendment was the right of self-defense.

to have a functional firm in your home. if you think about civilian possession of firearms, it is -- the world is vastly different than it was in 1791. the framers were afraid of a standing army. we have a standing army today. i think that many people who support this insurrectionist bellevue were disappointed that the supreme court in 2008 did not give voice to this more anti-government view of the second amendment. the truth is the second amendment envisions a well- regulated militia. whether the founding fathers thought it was important to have civilian gun ownership as a deterrent for tyranny, the second amendment itself clearly envisioned government regulation of the militia.

the supreme court said when the farmers referred to the militia in the second amendment -- framers referred to the militia in the second amendment, they were referring to the body of citizens ready to grab their guns and ready to fight in an instant. the militia would be well regulated by the government. the founding fathers had extensive laws that required people to shop at amendatory musters with their guns in tow where they would be -- they and their guns would be inspected and registered on public roles.

for all the controversy over president obama's health care mandate, they have got so much attention in june of last year, the founding fathers in 1792 pass a law requiring every free citizen, free mail between the ages of 18 and 45 to outfit themselves with a rifle. a military style musket for -- capable of serving in the militias. the founding fathers did not view the second amendment as a basis for insurrection. rather, they viewed it as part of a well-regulated militia.

>> thank you. >> i was wondering if you could talk a little bit about whether in the publication you might be able to stress i or break out likely voters. just thinking about polls that people are paying attention. also 2 likely voters and also by state or region of the country. >> those are good questions. survey firms have algorithms that allow them to break out motors. for this purpose we care about the views of all americans and so we wanted to report the rates of support among americans, broadly speaking. we did not ask that likely voter battery to subset the data. there are other important ways once we have time to further analyze the data beyond what will appear in the chapter, that may be of interest in terms of some groups -- sub-groups, region of the country, correlated with a gun ownership. that has to be done with some care. we talked about how age matters on this issue. just being here on a university

context is important to understand how younger people versus older people think about issues related to gun violence. and for insight into where we're going as a country as jagger people become older and have more in ability to influence the political process. great point, critical to understand these data in terms of various different types of things that matter. thank you. >> i know there are many more questions but -- you want to take one more? all right. where is the microphone? >> i would like to thank the speakers for the wonderful information that has been brought forth i would like to say that i would have expected more talk on the impact, the important impact of training on effectively reducing gun violence. for law enforcement personnel, for ex-military personnel, the average citizen in our schools, businesses, training is the glue that holds together all the measures we have been discussing yesterday and today. >> thank you. dannell, would you like to respond to that? >> i have one brief comment. thank you. professor winkler said that defense by gun in the home is a rare event. that may be true. nonetheless, it is an important effect for those who have been affected by it. and that was the importance of training. thank you.

>> thank you for your comments. i want to wrap up with some reflections on what has been an amazing couple of days. i will start with the banks -- thanks, what a fabulous group of contributors we have for this event. [applause] jan and i sought out to get the best minds available to tackle what is a very complex problem. if you just look at understanding the gun violence by itself, that is a struggle. if you start to think about the policy challenges, that is another struggle and a level of complexity. you have the legal issues and

then all the political things we have been talking about. i really feel like we were successful in bringing the right people together to address that and i feel very good about that. i also feel confident this will lead to productive solutions to address one of our most important public health problems. prior to the sandy hook elementary school shooting, we had had a terrible year with mass shootings. i was pitching truly frustrated following those events, the level of discourse that occurred -- particularly frustrated following those events, the level of discussion that occurred. the messages i felt were getting through work really quite inaccurate. -- were really quite inaccurate. there is disagreement among

americans on gun-control. nobody really wants gun control. we cannot do anything because of the second amendment. there are no gun laws that work. all of these things we have found with the best evidence and the best people to be false. we can go forward. we do have data. we do have very good ideas about how to address a very important problem. i don't underestimate the challenges on any dimensions. it is a very complex problem, particularly the political aspect to it. i think the contributions, our last panel give me and others here a level of optimism. that we're in a different place

right now. our country is at a different place. and i think we do have things that can work. i was very inspired by our panelists this morning, by how in australia and brazil, scotland, they have responded and it was not easy.

i particularly am so impressed with the efforts in brazil, knowing they sort of obstacles that were in front of them there.

i'll leave here with great optimism that we're in a different place now. we can make meaningful change. i want everyone to know what comes next. you have heard that we will be coming out with a book published by johns hopkins university press within less than two weeks, i believe. every effort will be made to make that available to the relevant policy makers and the general public. one final thing i wanted to say. i have been thanking the contributors, but i want to thank the johns hopkins community. it is tremendous to see the level of interest and deeply felt commitment to address this problem by so many people who do not necessarily work on this. it is not their career. there are other important things they're working on in public health or other areas. i for one half felt really supported by that. i think that is it. let's go out and make some change. [applause] >> we will hear from the university president'. >> i am the director of public affairs here. before we get started, i want to make a few brief announcements. this program is being broadcast on the web.

our speakers are going to make a few brief remarks. then we will break for questions. for the reporters here, we will have a microphone. take your questions in a microphone so the audience can hear. >> this has been a very important two days. given the drastically high rates of gun violence in the united states, starkly illustrated by numerous mass shootings, movie

theaters, shopping malls, houses of worship, and now in an elementary school, also on a daily basis in neighborhoods across the country, we knew that john hoppe -- johns hopkins that we could not let this moment pass. we wanted to bring together national global experts, leaders on gun violence and policy, to prevent their -- to send their research -- research. thanks to daniel webster and colleagues, we were able to organize quickly and thoughtfully an international conference on reducing gun violence in america. with a call for action at the federal level, this summit is our effort to galvanize collective expertise and advance the discussion of gun violence

in america through robust research and evidence. we also understood a critical component of the summit would be to create research that can inform, shape, and support policy debate. you will hear these important recommendations in a moment. as we have indicated a number of times throughout the summer at. that book will be published and will capture the research discussed in the last two days of the summit. before turning over the podium, i want to thank the scores of people who are in this room who have made this summit the

possible and successful

bloomberg school of public health are very grateful for your support. the last two days have been an amazing experience for me to bring together the best scholars, the best expertise, to grapple and come forward with a set of recommendations based on the best available research and experience. i will touch briefly upon the expertise we assemble.

as the president look -- alluded to, we have individuals coming from several different countries to contribute. we have criminologists. public health leaders. legal experts. a really vast majority, span of experience and expertise. many decades of working on this problem of gun violence and solutions to it. following mass shootings, we tend to go through a very similar process. prior to the most recent tragedy in newtown, connecticut, we kept hearing a similar refrain of things i knew not to be the case. we hear that nothing works.

gun policies do not work. we would hear there is no agreement. there is too much division on public opinion. we cannot address this because of the constitution. we brought together the scholarship to really refute all of those efforts. we think we have a set of recommendations that not only will be effective in reducing gun violence in america but will also be constitutional and will ha. we have distributed our press release that has specific recommendations. i will not go through everything -- every single one of those. i want to talk about how the reforms are necessary.

but the most important thing to do is fix our current system for background checks. it is indefensible that we haca allow the spirit we recommend this can be changed so every single firearm transaction, that that be processed through a federally licensed firearms dealer with a background check and record keeping process. we also identified a set of recommendations to address a well established fact.

we also have a set of recommendations in an area i think is not adequately discussed when we have different policy discussions about guns. that is taking a close look at who should be legally able to possess guns. or what we have found in evidence we have examined. turn president -- they are grossly inadequate. they allow a number of individuals that can be quite

dangerous. other category of individuals, such as individuals who commit a serious violent crime in court to be prohibited from purchasing firearms for an extended period time. excuse me. we also have recommendations a

broad category that does not really capture the individuals that are really of greatest concern. we also made recommendations on the topic of assault weapons to bend the future sale of assault weapons, incorporating a more carefully crafted definition of our prior band to reduce risk the law can be easily debated as the prior ban was. we also recommended banning the future sale and possession of large capacity ammunition magazines, magazines that hold greater than 10 rounds of ammunition. finally, and very importantly, we have recommendations relevant to research. we believe the federal

government should provide funds for the center of disease control, the national institute of justice, to understand both the causes and solutions of gun violence commensurate with its dramatic impact on public health and safety. we also recommend the surgeon general issue a report on the state of the problem of gun violence in america in progress toward solutions. those are the general recommendations. we have more specific ones in our press release. as i alluded to before, many

poles asked to general a question. we can now open it up for questions. i asked police to use a microphone and identify yourself. >> i will make a couple points related to what daniel said about public opinion survey research we have done here just over the last two weeks, in the weeks focusing on general attitudes among the public appeared we were interested in looking at a broad range of policies.

gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i rise to present legislation providing emergency supplemental funding for hurricane sandy relief and recovery. the base bill totals $17 billion in crucial funding to meet immediate needs for the victims, businesses and communities devastated by hurricane sandy. since this terrible storm hit, we've come to realize that recovery is going to take months and years, not days and

weeks. . this legislation puts the region on the path to recovery by providing the aid needed for immediate relief. we are also analyzing the justifications for further financial aid for long-term relief. that would come in a later supplemental or a regular appropriations bill. a significant portion of the funding in this bill will go to the most direct source of relief and recovery funding available to the victims of the storm, the fema disaster relief fund, which will provide individual and community assistance throughout the affected region. the bill also will support critical housing and infrastructure needs, ensure repairs to damaged veterans' medical facilities, and help keep the economy moving by funding necessary repairs, small

business loans, and recovery aid for businesses of all sizes. my committee thoroughly examined the emergency request, listened to the needs of the people and the region, and assessed the most pressing needs to determine the funding levels paid in this bill. we crafted this legislation responsibly, giving the administration's request and the senate passed bill a hard scrub to eliminate unnecessary spending. we have removed objectionable provisions added by the senate and have adjusted funding levels to make the best use of taxpayer dollars.

as we know, we face precarious fiscal times and it's essential that congress make responsible decisions to ensure efficient and effective spending. taking cues from previous efforts we have included important oversight measures to prevent abuse and ensure that federal agencies are using these funds effectively and appropriately. this is not the first major natural disaster nor unfortunately will it be the last. one of the great attributes of the american people has been our ability and willingness to come together time and time again to help victims of catastrophes recover. we have seen the havoc that sandy has wrought on the residents of our northeast region, and it is once again our

duty to help our people get back on their feet. i urge our colleagues to support this legislation. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: i rise in strong support of this bill and i want to thank chairman rogers, chairman frelinghuysen for taking the lead on this very important legislation. i rise in strong support of the underlying bill with the addition of the frelinghuysen amendment. it will help families, businesses, and communities affected by sandy recover and rebuild. in the 79 days that have passed since superstorm sandy caused such destruction, i have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, with governor cuomo and christie, chairman rogers,

mr. king of new york, mr. frelinghuysen, and all our colleagues from affected states to provide long overdue assistance to our regions. sandy devastated much of the northeast and it's one of the costliest natural disasters in our nation's history. 110 americans lost their lives, 8.1 million homes were without power. beaches across new york and new jersey were destroyed. more than 650,000 homes were damaged beyond repair. sandy ground regional commerce to a halt by making tunnels and our transportation networks impassable. 265,000 businesses in new york alone were severely affected by sandy, costing jobs, paychecks, and billions lost in economic output. there is no excuse for the house

not passing the senate bill last congress, but i'm very pleased that the first order of business in the 113th congress may be passing this emergency disaster relief package. along with the 9.7 billion flood insurance bill -- $9.7 billion flood insurance bill the house past a few weeks ago, the frelinghuysen amendment would provide $60 billion of the $80 billion in needs identified by our governors. there are a number of provisions i would like to highlight. $16 billion for community development block grants to help communities -- community and businesses rebuild. $13 billion to repair and harden transportation infrastructure. $5.35 billion to repair damages and bolster army corps projects to protect against costly future disasters. $11.5 billion for the fema

disaster relief fund, which not only helps provide public assistance in the northeast, but also allows fema to continue helping victims of other disasters. $780 million to help businesses open their doors through s.b.a. loans. and $800 million to health and human services initiatives, including repairing head start centers and biomedical research falsilts. while i strongly supported the package -- support it the package is still not perfect. it does not fund the administration's request for community development block grants. it does not include superior senate language on the flexibility and cost share of army corps projects. and limits funding to health facilities that lost tens of millions of dollars due to the storm. finally, opponents of the legislation who claim that the bill is riddled with so-called

pork, and unnecessary provisions are just plain wrong. frankly, anyone who has really read the bill knows there are no earmarks and those who have toured the damage know aid is desperately needed. my colleagues, there were 146 major disaster declarations in the last two years. there isn't a region of the country immune to catastrophe. this package was written with the core belief that when one region suffers destruction by a natural disaster, americans are proud to help their fellow citizens recover and rebuild. it is imperative that we support this package today, reject amendments that weaken the bill, and prevent the region from recovering as quickly as possible. yield back. the chair: the gentlelady reserves the balance.

the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, a member of our committee, who has been unseesing -- unceasing in his efforts to aid the people of his region. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: at the onset i thank the leadership for help bringing this legislation to the floor. i also thank chairman hahl rogers and the appropriations committee for their assistance. one of the untold chapters of this story has been the hard work of the chairman and his staff for preparing both his amendment and mine which follows. most importantly i want to thank the chairman for his eloquent statement in the rules committee last night. his heartfelt recognition of the hardship and misery suffered by our constituents in the northeast meant a great deal to me personally and to our new jersey, new york, and connecticut delegation. oy also want to offer words of

appreciation to my colleagues in new jersey and new york, their bipartisan diligence and dead quation of our staffs over the past several weeks should make all of our constituents proud. and then there's governor christi, my constituent from mars county, whose tireless work has helped us get to this day and will help us get this bill across the finish line. as he always does, he put a very human face on the devastation suffered by families and communities in new jersey and our neighbors in new york and connecticut. my colleagues, people are hurting. this afternoon in new jersey, new york, and connecticut and other areas of the northeast. the suffering and damage are real. and their needs a great. according to many states, new jersey, new york, connecticut, and the rest of the east coast sustained nearly $100 billion worth of damage. the destruction is staggering. 346,000 household units were damaged in new jersey alone.

tens of thousands of our fellow americans are still displaced from their homes and their apartments. municipalities are starting to provide services. many are still under emergency declarations, and some municipalities are not habitible. small businesses are decimated. many small business men and women are trying to key side -- decide if they can survive and keep their employees on the payroll. mr. chairman, the area damaged by hurricane sandy represents roughly 10% of our nation's economy. it makes good sense, economic, and fiscal to get our region back on its feet as soon as it can. i urge support of the rogers amendment and the frelinghuysen amendment. without these vital measures our constituents in the northeast face nothing but more delay, more uncertainty, more unemployment, and more misery. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: i'm very pleased to

yield two minutes to the distinguished minority whip who is extimely helpful to all of us on both sides of the aisle in bringing the bill to the floor today. mr. hoyer. the chair: gentleman from maryland is recognized tore two minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank you, madam chair. i thank the ranking member, mrs. lowey, and i thank mr. rogers for his work as well bringing this bill to the floor. i rise not only in support of the chairman's mark at $17 billion, but also for the frelinghuysen amendment. i think both of these together meet our responsibilities in responding to one of the most historic and damaging storms to hit the country. not only the northeast but to the country. people throughout new york, new jersey, connecticut, and the whole middle atlantic region are still struggling to pick up the pieces after the most devastating storm in years, and congress has a duty to help. i have said before it's never too late to do the right thing.

i thought we might do this previously, but now is a good time to act and hopefully today we will act. earlier this month we took action to help ensure the flood insurance benefits will be available for those still recovering from sandy. today, however, we must finish our work and take action on the comprehensive aid package that communities in the northeast need to rebuild. this is not a moment for partisan differs or gimmicks. amending these relief bills will make it harder to get aid to those who need it as soon as possible. the american people, especially those impacted by sandy, will not look kindly on such delay. congress appropriated $62.3 billion in emergency relief, less than two weeks after hurricane katrina struck new orleans and the gulf coast in 2005. i voted for that. that was the right thing to do. as it was then it is now the

right thing to do. there's no reason why the people of new york, new jersey, and affected areas should have to wait any longer. this is a bipartisan effort. when americans are in trouble, in pain, at risk we respond not as republicans, not as democrats, but as americans to their needs. we must pass these relief bills so i urge my colleagues on both sides to oppose any amendments that diminish our ability to provide this much needed assistance. only by setting party aside and coming together as fellow americans and fellow representatives can we achieve this goal. i urge all my colleagues, not only on my side of the aisle but on the other side of the aisle, to join together to make sure that the relief necessary is given this day to this region for this storm. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes

to the distinguished gentleman from florida, mr. young, the chairman of the defense subcommittee on appropriations, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from florida is recognized for two minutes. mr. young: mr. chairman, thank you very much for yielding me the time. the emergency funding provided for the army corps of engineers in this bill and the amendment that you offer is narrowly drawn to help the states hardest hit by hurricane sandy. would the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen, the very capable and effective chairman of the energy and water development subcommittee, yield for a question? mr. frelinghuysen: i yield to you. pleasure. mr. young: despite my earlier comments, i'm concerned that the flood control and coastal emergency funds appropriated by our committee in previous acts are still available for other

emergency needs that occurred prior to sandy, and i would appreciate the gentleman's responsible to that. . mr. frelinghuysen: these are funds we believe that are required to respond to emergency needs for the army corps of engineers related to hurricane sandy. by appropriating these funds for this direct purpose, other prior appropriated emergency funds for the corps should remain available for other needs in accordance with the direction provided by those previous acts. mr. young: mr. chairman, thank you very much for that clarification, and i yield back. mr. rogers: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: i am very pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the homeland security of appropriations. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for two minutes.

mr. price: i rise in support of both amendments before us. we in north carolina remember hurricane fran, hurricane floyd, and we know how important it is for congress to extend itself in an hour of need. as ranking member of the homeland security appropriations subcommittee, i note that d.h.s. would receive $5.5 billion within the base $17 billion provision, accounting for only 54% of the administrators' request. also is $6.1 billion in disaster relief and $3.1 billion in disaster loans. madam speaker, without this additional $6.1 billion, fema estimates that the disaster relief fund will run out of money in may of 2013, halting long-term rebuilding in places like joplin and tuscaloosa. adopting only the $17 billion proposal does not even fully fund current sandy estimates,

and anstonnishingly provides no funding for other disasters in 2013. the $17 billion package also shortchanges the coast guard by about half the request and doesn't include fundings requested for i.c.e. or the secret service. now, my republican colleagues say that the supplementry $33 billion package will address my concerns. but requiring separate votes is designed either to doom the second bill or to pass it on the backs of democrats while tea partiers are free to vote no. this is an ever example of republicans playing politics with disaster aid. members of the coast guard decimated by sandy and firefighters in breezy point trying to rebuild their devastated community. they're saying to their own constituents if disaster strikes, there's no guarantee congress will assist you. this is a dangerous precedent. madam speaker, when i was chairman of this subcommittee from 2011 to 2010, we provided more than $14 billion in

emergency disaster relief spending following natural disasters. not once during that process did we ask who was affected, democrats or republicans, red states or blue states. we provided the money based on -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. price: i ask for an additional 30 seconds. we gave the money without hesitation because that's what the american people expect and deserve from congress in a time of need. so, madam speaker, i will support both of these amendments. i urge my colleagues to do likewise. the right thing to do, however, would have been to hold a vote on the bipartisan senate package sent to us back in december, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield myself three minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rogers: and i yield to mrs. lowey, the ranking member of the committee, who by the way this is her first appearance on the floor as the new ranking democrat on the full appropriations committee, and i

want to initially congratulate her on that position, look forward to a good working relationship with her. and i yield to the gentlelady. mrs. lowey: well, first of all, i want to thank the chairman, mr. rogers, who's been a good friend for so many years. i look forward to working together in a bipartisan way so we can work everything out before and serve the american people, and i thank you for your kind words. i rise to engage the gentleman from kentucky, the chairman of the appropriations committee, in a colloquy. some questions have been raised about the interpretation of language in both the rogers substitute and the frelinghuysen amendment under the department of health and human services, public health and social services emergency fund. the language prohibits use of amounts in that appropriation for costs that are reimbursed

by self-assurance. i'd like to engage chairman rogers in a discussion to help clarify the meaning of that provision. am i correct in understanding that the term self-insurance is intended to refer to a form of plan pursuant to law or regulation in which amounts are set aside in a fund to cover losses of specified types and amounts? am i also correct that without such a formal funded arrangement, an organization would not be considered to be self-insured for purposes of this language simply because they do not have any commercial insurance coverage for the loss in question? mr. rogers: reclaiming my time. yes, the gentlelady's understanding is correct, and i further yield to her. mrs. lowey: i thank the gentleman. i'd like to confirm my understanding that this

language would only proclued use of appropriated funds if the expenses in question were actually reimbursed by the formal self-insurance plan. in other words, merely having a self-insurance plan would not bar you of this appropriation, the things that the plan did not cover or pay for. i ask the gentleman, is my understanding correct? mr. rogers: the gentlelady's understanding is correct. i reserve the balance. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: it is a pleasure for me to yield two minutes to ranking member visclosky of the defense appropriations committee. the chair: the gentleman from illinois -- indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. visclosky: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i rise today for the support of

the underlying bill and the frelinghuysen amendment which will greatly assist the states and communities affected by hurricane sandy. in every year since 1997 with two exceptions, the congress has recognized the need for emergency funds to respond to the impacts of natural disasters or the nation's water infrastructure. the frelinghuysen amendment includes a total of $5 b.p. 35 billion for the army -- $5.35 billion for the army corps of engineers and which repair existing facilities in the storm and restore projects to design standards. roughly $3.4 billion remaining will be used for the corps for projects intended to reduce future flood risk. additionally, the frelinghuysen amendment provides $88.3 million to repair facility and equipment damage to the department of defense facilities in several states along the eastern seaboard.

this is what we should be doing as a nation. it is far less expensive to invest and prevent damage than it is to clean it up. we need to fund projects that result in a long-term sustainability of the impacted communities and reduce the economic costs and risks associated with disaster. madam chair, our country has provided billions of dollars in infrastructure funding for dams, schools and roads in iraq and afghanistan on an emergency basis. we certainly can do no less for our own citizens in our own country and urge passage of the underlying legislation and chairman frelinghuysen's amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. runyan. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes.

mr. runyan: madam chair, i rise in support of h.r. 152, the sdagser relief appropriations act of -- disaster relief appropriations act of 2013. this bill does the minimum necessary to help towns like brick township rebuild. it does the minimum to help remove mold from their living room so they can sleep at night without worrying their children get sick from breathing mold supports. -- spores. as one of my new jersey colleagues pointed out today, there are more than 30 of my colleagues who received disaster assistance for their own districts in the past and actually plan to oppose this package before us. madam chair, i would say to my friends, why should new jersey and new york be treated any differently? my friends should ask themselves, what would they do if this was their district and

suffered the amount of catastrophic loss that many families and businesses in my district now face? next to me, you can see damage sandy left behind from brick township. my constituents in brick have suffered for almost three months without any help from this congress. i want to be able to tell them when i go home this weekend that help is heading their way. and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: madam chair, i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished chair, the ranking member of the financial services and other government programs committee, mr. serrano. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. serrano: thank you very much. the chair was very nice. i rise in support of both the rogers amendment and the frelinghuysen amendment, which will finally provide new york, new jersey, connecticut and elsewhere for the funding needed to respond to hurricane

sandy. while i am glad they were considering this bill today, it is a travesty that it has taken this long for the house of representatives to allow a vote on disaster response funding. the money in this bill and the frelinghuysen amendment is the minimum that new york, new jersey and elsewhere need for their recovery process. i'm very concerned that there are several amendments that will be considered today that seek to cut further funding from the bill. at least one amendment seeks to offset the cost of this bill. our nation has never before attempted to offset the cost of disaster assistance. the appropriations committee in the house have always come together to help americans in times of need without regard to cost. to offset cost here would effectively kill this bill in the senate and further delay assistance that is desperately needed for new york city and elsewhere. these two -- this two-step process is the proper way to go. i would just add in closing that we in new york have always

seen images of disasters in other areas, but we never imagined anything like this happening in our area. we understand what other folks have gone through, and i hope you understand the need we have to recover. the pain, the suffering, the despair that people in our community feel is beyond anything we could i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america or we can imagine in new york. so this aid will at the minimum immediately send a message that we care and we want something to happen positive, and in fact people will begin to recover. and so i thank mr. rogers and mrs. lowey for bringing the bill to the floor, and i will ask folks to vote for both amendments and for the bill in general. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam chair, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from staten island, new york city, mr. grimm. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. grimm: thank you very much, chairman.

i appreciate you yielding. madam chair, let me first start by saying thank you to the many, many colleagues on both sides of the aisle that have been working tirelessly, and a special thank you to their staff, not only the rules committee but appropriations and all those from new york and new jersey. many, many staffers have stayed up more than 24 hours to make this happen, and i am indebted to them and i know the people of staten island are very, very grateful. this is a time that is very unique in our history. we just started tearing down the homes in staten island. new york is tearing down 200, and they started in staten island. when i was there this past weekend, a mother came up to me and i asked her how she was doing. she said, i'm ok but i'm worried about my children. i said why. she said because they start crying hysterically when it rains. they cry when it rains because

they think there's going to be another flood, and they're scared. so at the end of the day when we debate the various amendments in the bill and its merits, all i ask is that everyone in this blessed chamber remember that there are real people, human beings that are behind all this, and at the end of the day, if it was our families, i know that they would want them to be safe and healthy and the support of the entire country behind them. so with that i thank, again, my colleagues that have worked tirelessly. i thank the staff members, and i thank you for this opportunity to speak and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: madam chair, i'm pleased to give two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, george miller. the chair: the gentleman from

california is recognized for two minutes. . mr. miller: i thank the gentlewoman for yielding and i rise to engage the chairman, the gentleman from kentucky, of the appropriations committee, on a colloquy. as the chairman knows, superstorm sandy displaced thousands of children from their homes, leaving them homeless and struggling to regain stability in their lives. many of these children were forced to move out of their school districts while others could not return to their schools because the storm damage. these children had trauma. fortunately under the current law, the homeless assistant act, homeless student, including those displaced by disasters, are entitled to important educational protections and services including transportation to stay in the same school. public schools in new york, new jersey, connecticut are working tirelessly to support uninterrupted education of

displaced children through the program. yet these schools face significant unexpected costs associated with the increased number of homeless students. congress has appropriated supplemental funds to help defer the costs associated with these increase -- these increases from past disasters. mr. chairman, if i might, give than the bill before us today does not contain direct funding for the program, is it your understanding that the intentions of the department of health and human services and the department of education work with the states of new york, new jersey, connecticut to assist the school districts affected by superstorm sandy, to access funds under the social services block grant to support the education of students displaced by the storm, including the transportation, counseling and supplies? i yield to the gentleman. mr. rogers: i thank the gentleman for yielding. yes. that is my understanding. and intention. as you know, congress previously has recognized the critical role all schools play in creating stability and

meeting the educational needs of children and youth displaced by disasters. the flexibility of the ssbg has proven crucial in responding to the many needs that arise in the aftermath of natural disasters. chad: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mrs. lowey: an additional 30 seconds. mr. rogers: transporting displaced students is an allowable service and i encourage h.h.s. and affected states to work with affected school districts and promptly provide any reimbursements for these critical services. mr. miller: i thank the gentleman very much and i want to thank you and the staff of the majority and minority for helping to work out this solution. thank you very much. chad: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. lodge rodge -- mr. rogers: i recognize the gentleman from mississippi, mr. palazzo, for three minutes. chad: the gentleman from

mississippi is recognized for three minutes. mr. palazzo: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in favor of the sandy relief package that's being considered today. i want to thank chairman rogers and the appropriations committee for their work to bring this bill to the floor in a responsible manner and address many of the concerns that some in this body had. i also want to take this opportunity once more to thank my colleagues for their work on yesterday's sandy relief improvement act that brought much-needed reforms for our disaster relief system. this bill that passed the house unanimously is a good first step in streamlining the disaster relief process and saving the country money and lives. these are the kinds of commonsense reforms that must continue to be a part of the disaster relief conversation. a little over a week ago i voted against adding more debt to a failing system without reforms. many might have colleagues joined me in that vote and i know some still have reservations about the package before the house today. i spoke in -- i've spoken to many of these colleagues. i understand concerns about the fiscal state of our nation, i

understand your position and respect your vote. but while we continue to do the responsible thing by looking for ways to pay for future disaster relief, we must do what is necessary to help those in the northeast. and we must do it now. let me just say a vote for yesterday's reform package which passed the house unanimously and a vote for today's relief package allows us to move forward in a way that begins to address much-needed reforms while at the same time providing the immediate relief that sandy victims so desperately need. i saw those needs up close and personal when i visited some of the hardest-hit areas of new jersey and new york last week. it brought back vivid images of hurricane katrina and the destruction that my home state of mississippi experienced seven years ago. districts like those of my friends, congressman runyan and grimm, are similar to those along the gulf coast after katrina. their constituents experienced a terrible natural disaster and they need our help.

so today we consider provisions that provide immediate relief for sandy victims while allowing them to build forward, not just back. that will strengthen these communities in the face of future storms. we cannot wait another seven years, we cannot wait until the next disaster before we take up these reforms. today's vote for immediate relief is about giving the sandy victims the help they need now. it is vital to the recovery efforts of the northeast, it is vital to making our communities more resilient and it is vital to ensuring better preparedness and response to future storms. so i urge my colleagues to support the disaster relief package. i yield back. chad: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: madam chair, i am delighted to yield two minutes to the distinguished dean of the new york delegation, mr. rangel. chad: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. rangel: thank you so much, mrs. lowey. i want to thank chairman rogers

for the manner in which he's handled this crises and certainly congratulate mrs. lowey for the leadership that she has divided this house over the years -- provided this house over the years, but especially at the time we needed her the most. that she was there to bring the people together, republicans and democrats, to do the right thing. i want to thank, too, and encourage the new members of congress to take advantage of this great opportunity they have to see what the house of representatives is all about, notwithstanding the bad publicity that we get. for whatever reasons the 11th congress failed to respond to the feeling -- 112th congress failed to respond to the feeling and fabric of this body, where every american would know that if ever they were involved in a crises, earthquake, flood or fires, they could depend on their colleagues in the house of representatives to respond. it was never a question of whether they were democrats or

republicans, whether they came from a red state or a blue state, it was how fast can we help? and you can depend on that help. for whatever the reason the 112th congress failed, but now we ask new members to join with those that were here before in bringing together people in this congress who once again rebuild that reputation -- to once again rebuild that reputation that we had so rightly enjoyed and that is that if you have any type of problem in this great nation and you need the help of your colleagues, you can depend on the house of representatives, the people's house, in coming forward to provide those aids. we cannot bring back the lives, the homes and the hopes that so many people have lost. but we can say in the people's house we respond to the problems that people have. i thank you again, mrs. lowey, for the leadership you provided and i look forward to working with you and chairman rogers in the future.

chad: jat yield -- the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: may i inquire of the time remaining. chad: the gentleman from kentucky has 14 minutes remaining. the gentlelady from new york has 12 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, mr. gardner. chad: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. gardner: thank you. i introduced funding for the emergency watershed protection programming to about -- to be used for any area that had a major disaster. apts an important program that allows for watershed and infrastructure restoration. many parts of the western united states were devastated by wildfires last summer. there were over 100,000 acres of land as well as over 600 homes destroyed in these fires. the program will help communities and others of the united states rebuild and prevent future damage to people

and property. unfortunately this bipartisan amendment offered with other members of the colorado delegation did not get through the rules committee process and so it will not be considered on the house floor today. the tragedy caused by hurricane sandy necessitates assistance from the federal government. but it's also important that disaster assistance be available to other areas that experience natural disasters. particularly those when it comes to federal lands. i ask the chairman to consider working with me and other members for wildfire restoration. mr. rogers: will the gentleman yield? mr. gardner: i will yield. mr. rogers: first i want to thank the gentleman from colorado for his work on the emergency watershed program. i'm aware of the need for this assistance and i look forward to working with you and others to address this important funding in future legislation. mr. gardner: i thank the chairman for his work and support and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york.

mrs. lowey: madam chair, i am pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman, mr. moran. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. moran: welcome a new running backing member of the full appropriations committee -- ranking member of the full appropriations committee who also hails from new york and full ynds what's involved here. -- fully understands what's involved here. do unto others as you would have them do unto you. that's what all the members of this body should ask themselves . if they were in the situation of the states that were so severely impacted by hurricane sandy, how would they vote? the fact is that natural disasters are occurring with

more frequency and with greater severity. and so there's a very good chance that in nearly every congressional district in this country this may happen to you. and of course when it does, property values go way down. in fact, billions of dollars can be lost, certainly were with hurricane sandy. so where does the municipality get the money to repair? likewise with the state. the only place you turn to, you can turn to, is the federal government. that's why we are here. we're in this together. so this is not about the northeast vs. the rest of the country. one part of our body, if you will, of states has been severely injured. we need to repair that damage.

now, within the interior and environment appropriations there's money for wastewater and sewer treatment projects, things that haven to be done -- have to be done. we have to provide that money. i think we have about a billion and a half dollars to do that. certainly if we september the rogers-frelinghuysen -- if we accept the rogers-frelinghuysen amendment. and this bill is whole with that amendment which we should strongly support. there's an amendment to require -- to take away mr. frelinghuysen's effort to allow a waiver on historic preservation. well, yes, it should be done. these localities don't have that kind of money. and a lot of the revenue coming into these economies is coming from tourism. they come to see historic structures. they come to see the way that

many parts of the northeast were. when we were building the foundation of this country. that money should be made available in whole with federal dollars. mr. frelinghuysen's amendment is right on point. it needs to be included. so i know i'm getting to -- i've got a good speech written to thank you. we've got wonderful staff. but the fact is this is an opportunity -- mrs. lowey: i'm pleased to yield another minute. mr. moran: another minute. thank you, thank you, madam chair. the fact is that this is an opportunity to show what we're all about. do unto others as we would have them do unto us. let's make this money available. let the northeast repair itself, heal itself, get that economy back on its feet, start returning revenue to the federal government. the fact is that these northeast states contribute more to the federal treasury

than they get out of the federal treasury. so let's get this done. and we want to recognize the chairman rogers' supplemental, the very good work that mr. frelinghuysen from new jersey has done, and of course mrs. lowey. this is a good bill. it's urgent that we pass it. let's get this done. these negative amendments that try to take away money to make ideological points are simply out of order right now. let's heal this wound. let's let this economy and the northeast get back on its feet. we'll all be better off. thank you, madam speaker. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman continues to reserve the balance. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: madam chair, i am very pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from new jersey who's been extraordinarily helpful in trying to sort out the challenges on this bill.

mr. andrews. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. . without objection. mr. andrews: i thank my friend for yielding and i thank the chairman of the appropriations committee and my friend for working together to bring this product to the floor. i've heard two objections to this bill. the first is that it's too -- that money is spent in the wrong places, and the second is the amount of money altogether is too costly. let me try to address those objections. the money being spent in the wrong places, i would respectfully request that members who have an objection read the legislation, because throughout the legislation when it refers to the money to be spent it says that the moneys to be spent on -- and i'm quoting -- necessary funds related to the consequences of hurricane sandy, end quote. now, there's one exception to this that i read, and it is limited to situations where

there were prior disasters that are not yet cleaned up. so this is a bill that deals almost exclusively with the sandy disaster, and to the extent it does not, deals with lingering problems in other parts of the country from those disasters. so those who would argue that the amount of money in the bill is too much to begin with, i would offer you this question. if you're running a business and you had 100 manufacturing plants and sales offices around the country and 15 of them were shut down by a storm, so 15% of your available revenue was no longer available to you, what would you do? you'd repair those 15 manufacturing facilities and sales offices as quickly as you could in order to restore the health of your company and the growth of your revenue. that is exactly what this bill does. the taxpayers of new york, connecticut and new jersey,

three states, contribute more than 15% of the individual and corporate tax revenues collected in the united states of america. 15% from three states. if you shut down that engine of production, the whole country suffers. i would ask the gentlelady for 30 more seconds. i thank the gentlelady. this is an occasion for the house of representatives to rise above normal parochial politics. when the disaster struck the gulf, we were all mustians or lanans. when -- mississippiians or louisianans. when there have been earthquakes that hit the west coast of the country, we were all citizens of california. we're asking members from coast to coast throughout our country today to walk in the shoes of new yorkers and citizens of connecticut and new jersey. if we understand that we have a

common purpose, that this legislation does focus almost exclusively on the sandy disaster and then focus what it does not focus on sandy on other disasters and we understand that 15% of the economic engine of this country is at risk of being shut down, then we will all be people who cast the same vote and the right vote which is yes. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: madam chair, i am delighted to yield one minute to our distinguished leader and who has been such an advocate for the assistance to new york, new jersey, connecticut and pennsylvania, understanding that every part of the country has catastrophes and we as americans have a responsibility, and i thank you for your leadership.

the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized. ms. pelosi: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. i congratulate her on assuming the ranking position on the appropriations committee and how good it is for our country and to the people affected by hurricane -- superstorm sandy that congresswoman lowey, now ranking member lowey, is in the position to fight for their needs as the senior democrat on the appropriations committee. thank you for your leadership, and thank you, mr. rogers, for yours as well. this should be a day that we shed all of our disagreement about political differences and the rest and come together to prayerfully meet the needs of the people of our country. whether it's california with earthquakes, drought, fire, flood, whatever, whether it was

iowa with the floods, missouri was so affected, joplin, of course katrina, emblazoned in our mind, and hurricane ike on the heels of that, we all across the country have experienced natural disasters which have had a direct impact on the lives of the american people. i really do believe that for all the purposes that people send us to congress or elect us to public office, whether it's county executive or a member of congress, is they expect us to do what is right for them when they are in most need of our help. many things we can do for ourselves, but some things are just beyond the most determined resourceful -- determined, resourceful, operational people can do and that is when a natural disaster strikes.

so while we have had our conversations about what should be in the bill and how the bill should be bifurcated or in this case trifurcated and all the rest, when we have this vote today it will sweep away some of the concerns that people have about whether this assistance is going to actually show up. 79 days, 79 days since hurricane sandy struck the region. last year it was irene that struck much of the same area. some of the people haven't really fully recovered from that. whether it was the small business owner or homeowner or whatever, and now sandy. such a tremendous force. others have talked about, how

do you mitigate for such a thing? how do you address issues related to climate change? we'll save that conversation for another day but recognize its importance in this discussion. how do you mitigate for rebuilding? and that's important in terms of the resources that we're putting to bear on this problem. so let us today try to extract from the minds and the hearts and souls of the people who are affected any thought that the assistance will not be there. they know there's a lot of making up they have to do to restore the lives and businesses and homes that they had before. they should also know that when we say let us pray for the victims of hurricane sandy, we're just not saying a prayer and say that should be a substitute for us honoring our commitment as a country to our people but that our prayers are accompanied by our best intentions and our best actions

, not just words, for them. this is one of the longest delays in congressional action in response to a major natural disaster in recent history. for many of us, again, whoever seen or can confirm the aftermath of a hurricane or tornado and earthquake, whatever, we know that every single day is too long to wait. hope can never come fast enough. we cannot let another moment, hour, day go by without giving the biggest possible vote of confidence and hope to the people of new york, new jersey, connecticut and some, i understand, in pennsylvania. so we had our say. we made our points known. the justification has been established. the documentation of need is clear. the bipartisan support of the governor of new jersey, the governor of new york, the governor of connecticut and others stands ready to

implement these resources with the most integrity, the most effectiveness, certainly the -- witness the action of the mayor of new york. i smile when i say that because mayors, they just like to get a job done. and governors too. so let us as these executives and county executives and the rest weigh in, let us do our part to honor the social compact that we have of the american people that the federal government will be there at a time of a natural disaster, that this is an emergency and we recognize it so and that we honor the hopes, dreams, aspirations of the people affected. so i hope we can have an overwhelming, bipartisan vote because from a practical standpoint -- i think ideally, and with our sense of idealism, that would be the right thing

to do. but as a practical matter we just never know what mother nature may have in store for you in your region, and you would certainly want the embrace of the entire nation around you in your area for your constituents, for your community, for our country. so i urge a very strong bipartisan vote. i thank our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for making this vote today possible and urge, again, an aye vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: i'm very pleased to yield three minutes to mr. crowley of new york whose district has really seen incredible damage. he understands the impact of hurricane sandy and the people, the community and the

businesses. mr. crowley. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mr. crowley: i thank the gentlelady for yielding much such time. in the days following superstorm sandy, many of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle reached out to me and i think they did the same throughout the quad state region, expressing their sympathies and the concern. while they weren't able to see firsthand the devastation, everyone had a sense, i think, of that devastation by the footage they saw on television and over the internet. it was pretty powerful. everyone i think was astonished of the magnitude. we are not used to having such disasters in new york city. as everyone was shocked to see the extent of damage, homes literally wiped away, businesses destroyed,

floodwaters consuming people's living rooms and completely overturning their lives. and the damage wasn't just in one city or one town or for that matter one state. from breezy point, queens to edgewater, in my district in the bronx, from manhattan to brooklyn to staten island to westchester, to long island, from the coasts of pennsylvania, new jersey, all the way over to connecticut, so many people's lives were wrecked by this powerful storm. while words are kind and they're very much appreciated, action behind those words are even more appreciated. today finally i believe we'll have the opportunity to see action. 79 days later and far too much politics in between, this congress is doing what the people of the -- these communities need and what the american people demand, taking action. i'm thankful to this congress.

i'm thankful that it's finally taking the action to help the people of my district and the millions of other people hit hard by this enormous storm. i want to thank all of my colleagues from new york, new jersey, connecticut and pennsylvania for our shared commitment to getting this done and never letting partisanship surrounding this debate divide us. a special thanks to democratic whip steny hoyer and ranking member nita lowey as well as along with their staffs who have driven this process from day one. i want to thank you both. this bill will provide district assistance to communities devastated by superstorm sandy and would help restore and replace damaged or destroyed infrastructure and will put in place cost saving measures to prevent further damage when, when and not if future storms occur. i would just urge any of my colleagues, democrat or republican, who are considering voting against either the

frelinghuysen amendment or the overall bill to just for a moment put yourself in one of your colleague's shoes. i don't wish superstorm sandy or anything like it on any of my colleagues anywhere in the united states, but the one thing you need to know is that if this happens that your country will be there for you. the damage physical -- the physical damage, but also the mental damage that people are experiencing because they think that the country has forgotten. don't forget these people. do the right thing. vote for this bill. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. mrs. lowey: madam chair, i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from a neighboring district in new york who suffered a great deal. he saw the pain and the loss of property and homes all throughout the region, mr. engel. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. engel: well, thank you. i thank my dear friend,

congresswoman lowey, for yielding to me. i urge all of our colleagues to support the aid for the hurricane sandy victims. . we have a lot of disagreements in this congress. we talk about a lot of issues, about spending, taxing, offsets, whatever. those are issues, those fights on those issues should be left for another day. it shouldn't be intermixed with the fight to get money to superstorm sandy victims. they shouldn't be innocent pawns in this fight we have in congress. i've been in this congress for a while now and i have voted for aid for all regions of our country. be it katrina, be it floods and tornadoes. we didn't even think twice because that is what americans do. we help other communities, help

other americans. and there are natural disasters. we do it because it's the thing we have to do. now it's our turn. now we need help. now we say to the rest of america, please help us the way we helped you in your hour of need. the constituents in my district, in westchester and the bronx and my former district in rockland county are hurting very, very much. these are real people with real lives and real difficulties. so i beg my colleagues, please. don't vote for any poison pills that will kill this legislation . one of the things that's really irksome when some of my colleagues who stood up, when they had natural disasters in their district, begged us for help and we gave to them now. are voting against giving help to the people of new york, new

jersey, connecticut and pennsylvania. it's just not right. we can argue what role the federal government should play, whether it's too big or too small or whatever. but no one should argue against the fact that when americans are in need, the federal government has a role in stepping in and helping them and providing for their needs. that's all we're asking for today. i urge my colleagues to support all the aid for hurricane sandy and to reject any of the amendments that were taken away. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam chairman, i have no further requests for time. i'm prepared to close if the gentlelady is. mrs. lowey: that's fine. the chair: the gentlelady from new york has 30 seconds remaining. mrs. lowey: mr. chairman, i'll respond in 30 seconds and then defer. mr. chairman, i'd like to again thank you and mr. freelien hughesen for your --

frelinghuysen for your hard work on this bill and i'd like to address all those who aren't sure about how they're going to vote on this bill and i would like to clarify. the way this appropriation works. when you have huge disasters, transit systems, tunnels, thousands of homes that have to be repaired, you need that money committed before you can engage any contractor, any bill that's in a contract. now, as you and i know, mr. chairman, we worked a long time on that committee and before a dollar goes out, the person has to be responsible for every dollar that is committed, that they spent and that they're going to spend. so we're not just writing an open check. we're just not opening our checkbook. we're responding to these tremendous needs and i do hope we can get a bipartisan vote for this effort. thank you, madam chair. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. rogers: madam chairman, i mr. frelinghuysen: i yield

myself one minute. the chair:ithout objection. mr. frelinghuysen. -- mr. frelinghuysen: hurricane sandy hit 78 tais ago and caused unprecedented destruction, $100 billion in new york and nige air loan. my amendment supplements from rogers' in order to bring the total aid package to $60 billion, the amount requested by the president and endorsed by governors chrisest tee, omo -- christie, cuomo and malloy. this strips owl provisions in the senate that were deemed earmarks and all authorizing language. i'll close by reminding my colleagues of the proud tradition of congress cited in the recent letter cited by in the letters many of us received by the governors of the states affected. the house is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is

correct. the committee is in the in order. the gentleman deserves the right to be heard. the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: ma cham chair new york late december -- madam chair, the governors wrote congressional members, the delegations of our three states have been there to provide critical votes to these aid packages because that's what america is all about. when one of us is in need we ep up to the plate to lend a helping hand. madam chair, it's time to lend that helping hand. i urge support of my amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance of his time. who seeks recognition? the gentlelady from new york. for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? >> madam chairwoman i rise in strong support of the amendment offered by mr. friend. e chair: does the gentlelady claim time in opposition? >> no.

mr. frelinghuysen: i yield to the ranking member of the house appropriations committee from new york, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> madam chair, i rise in strong support of this amendment offered by mr. frelinghuysen. i cannot emphasize enough how critical these funds are to our region. mrs. lowey: i know there are many different viewpoints in this house and many different positions on the issues we consider here but madam chairwoman, i think we can all agree that the feral government has a fundamental and critical role when disasters of this magnitude strike. no state can do it alone. a federal response is essential. my colleagues, i commend mr. frelinghuysen on his amendment today and strongly urge swift passage. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield one minute to my colleague and friend, chris smith. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: i thank the gentleman. gaps in insurance coverage and the realization that there will be major tax receipt losses from towns that have had their tax bases evisceted, in states reeling from a body blow with no precedent has led to crippling shortfalls, we call them gaps, in needed aid. the free i think hughesen amendment fills those gaps. public infrastructure will get a huge boost and there will be economic revitalization. i have lost count of the number of my constituents who didn't have flood insurance on their home or condition have an adequate amount.

compounding the problem, many have upside down mortgages and need help. the frelinghuysen amendment offers buyouts and home elevate and provides critical money for the army corps of engineers. where the army corps has had projectsn place, madam speaker, we have seen a mitigation of the amount of dodge to infrastructure and homes. we need this to protect homes, businesses and of course to help the homeowners themselves. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to yield to the geleman from new york, mr. king. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. king: i thank the gentleman for yielding. let me commend congressman free i think hughesen for the outstanding job he has done on this amendment and throughout the cry sess. i am proud to stand with governor cuomo, mayor bloomberg, governor christie, all the members of the connecticut, new

york and new jersey delegations. there has been no disaster that needs aid more than sandy. every earmark is out, every dollar is accounted for. i walked through my neighborhood, i see people who loster that homes. this is not make believe. i'm proud to say that this bill is absolutely essential. i was there for every supplemental appropriation bill. i was proud to do it and more proud to stand with congressman frelinghuysen today. i yield back me balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek registration recognition? >> to claim me in opposition. the chair:ithout objection. >> i am not opposed but i ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition in order to yield it to my friend from new jersey because there are important messages to be be heard.

mr. frelinghuysen: i thank the gentleman for that courtesy and highly appreciate. i yield a minute to my colleague who represents rural new jersey, congressman lobiondo for a minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. lobiondo: chairman rogers thank you forget us to this point. to my colleagues from disaster -prone states, states that have had disasters in the past who

are supporting us, thank you very much. to my colleagues from states who have had disasters some recently, who haveecided that we need to change thrules of the game, shame on you. what does the missry index have to get to for our constituents? a new caucus should be formed. it should be the hycritical caucus because when you wanted the money five minutes before the storm was over, you didn't have any hesitation coming to us and yes i'm angry. you are changing it for thousands of people. do the right thing as we have always done for you. thank you. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to yield a minute to mr. grimm of staten island. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. grm: i would like to give

a special thanks to mr. frelinghuysen who has been an incredible stalwart and i want to echo the sentments of my good friend from new jersey. i'm going to ask everyone who is going to take this vote to consider what we are -- what are we really doing in this chamber. we aren't voting as republicans or democrats or as individuals, but voting as americans and the last time i checked the constitution, that constitution was to protect all of us, the welfare of this great united states. please remember that when you cast your vote today. these are americans in need that are counting on us to stand up and do the right thing, regardless of whether youre from a state that has had disasters or not. when america is calling and america lends that hand. that's who we are. make me proud today and support

this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield a minute to representative from new york state, carolyn maloney. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for a minute. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for yielding and for his really extraordinary bipartisan leadership on this issue with nita lowey and others from the northeast region. this is truly a bipartisan amendment with bipartisan devotion and commitment. the chairman has worked his heart out on this. and he has given his all to make this happen with great intelligence and commitment to address the real need and the suffering of the people. struck by the second-most economically devastating natural disaster in our nation's history

. people lost their homes, their cars, their jobs. in some cases, their entire neighborhoods and there should not be different standards for different storms or for different regions. we are all one country. we were there when other states and regions suffered hurricanes, tornadoes. we need you to be there with the northeast region today. this is a bipartisan effort. the standards should not different. and we were there for you. we need you to be there for the northeast. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i recognize mr. lance from new jersey for a minute. the chair: the geneman is recognized. mr. lance: i rise in support of congressman frelinghuysen's amendment and thank him, chairman rogers and our leadership for all they have done to move this issue forward. i speak today not as a resident

of new jersey, not as a northeasterner, but as an american. this nation has, in times of natural disasters, come together as one. in support of those in need. thousands upon thousands of our country men and women are in need from sandy's devastation. a horrific occurrence in the state i love. i ask all of my colleagues to join in support of mr. frelinghuysen's amendment and i thank all of those on the republican and the democratic side of the i'll for their -- aisle for their support today. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i recognize mr. serrano from new york for one minute. the chair: the gentleman from new york irecognized for one minute. mr. serro: i thank the

gentleman for your time and i thank you for yo leadership on this. you worked very hard to make this a bipartisan bill and bipartisan amendment. i stand in support of it. folks in new york need a lot of help. your amendment speaks to the small business community. it speaks to g.s.a.'s need to do repairs to buildings that service those communities, otherwise costly leases would have to take place to provide working space for federal employees. the details of your amendment speak many of the needs that we have in the community right now. and that's why i rise in support of it, in support of your efforts and make this a bipartisan effort. and i thank you for your support of so many people in need, not only in your state, and connecticut and my state of new york. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his ti. the gentleman from fluge. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield one

minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. runyan. the chair: the gentlan is recognized for one minute. mr. runyan: thank you, madam chair, and i rise today in support of the frelinghuysen amendment. we must pass this amendment to ensure that hard-working men and women in communities like tom's river, get the resources they need to get back on their feet. many of my constitues completely lost their home others lost power and heat in their homes for over a month. and many, like this home here, haven't been permitted back to their homes two months later. make no mistake, my constituents have suffered and have seen the communities they have grown up inmpletely destroyed. i urge passage of the frelinghuysen amendment. and i yield back the balae of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i'm pleased to recognize the gentleman from

new jersey for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. sires: this unprecedented storm has hurt new jersey to the tune of 41,000 people. 41,000 families are currently impacted. over 300 municipalities have been impacted in new jersey. thousands of families who lived in hoes in the area -- they have to live in basements -- have no place to go. here we are three months later and still battling over money. this is for people who are hurting. this is for states like new jersey, new york and connecticut who are donor states who send money to the federal government. when we have money for the wars

-- we have destroyed the infrastructure in iraqnd we put billions of dollars to fix the infrastructure in iraq. we put billions of dollars in afghanistan. this is for the american in this country who has been hurt by the storm that is unprecedented. my friends, we have to work together to get money to the people so they can start their lives over again. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. frelinghuysen: i recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr pascrell, for one mine. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one mute. mr. pascrell: we either act now or we wait for the consequences of the terrible silence of the decent and both sides can work together, it can be done, not only on this issue but many other issues. this was a tragedy. when you visit each town be it in long island or staten island

or hoboken, fort lee, what's the sign you look for? water line. that's the sign. what is the water line of our conscience, of our goodwill in having double standards for different storms? we have never done that before as a nation. and we shouldn't now do it to true believers who think one way or the highway. this must be passedoday. i commend mr. frelinghuysen, mr. rogers, knita lowey. thank you for putting your task forward in a priority and we are going to pass this today. congratulations, mr. frelinghuysen. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield a minute to mr. crowley of new

york. the chai the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. crowley: i have never in my 14 years spoken from this side of the aisle. i do it today not as a gimmick, but as part of my plea to my republican colleagues, all of us, not to act as democrats or republicans. people are suffering throughout the northeast and continue to do so. mr. frelinghuysen's amendment is one that will give assurance to the people of the quad-state region that the federal government will be with them throughout this crisis and will be there when everyone else has forgotten, the feral government will be there. the devastation is enormous and the level of psychological damage is enormous and we only know the tip of the iceberg and we don't know yet what will come. this amendment will give peace of mind to americans who are suffering today, americans, just like all of us today, are suffering than, and they are

looking to our congress, not re not blue, not republican, not democrats, just americans helping americans. that's what this amendment and this bill is about. i thank the gentleman from new jersey for yielding me this minute. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i recognize ms. clarke from new york state for a minute. the chair: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for one minute. chearkcheark i thank the -- mr. clarke: i thank the gentleman for the time and i appreciate the frelinghuysen amendment which ensures the package and jump start a recovery for the families and businesses in the affected four-state region. i represent a quaint bunka --

bungalow community whichas deluged during the event known as superstorm sandy. this is a working-class community, real solid americans, o have played by the rules all of their lives, and now their homes have been moved off of their foundations by the sheer force of this storm. we've got their backs ks that we are there as their representatives in time of need. i want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, in particular those from the affected region for their advocacy on behalf of the people who have been victimized by sandy. thank you. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield myself the balance of the time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelghuysen: i do have a

point of clarification before yield back my time. the amendment includes 22 billion 220,000 for the federal highway administration's emergency relief program. it's our intent $the 100 million cap applies to only the funds in this act and not to previous emergencies. in closing, madam chairman, as i said earlier, i ask all members to lend the northeast a hand, help us put the lives and families and communities back in good order, those that have suffered, continue to suffer, as had personal misery and loss, and we remember them as we pass this bill today, and i want to thank all the members fororor

mr. goodlatte: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this morning for only the second time in the history of the house of representatives, we will read allowed the full text of the constitution of the ited states. we hope this reading will inspire many more americans to read the constitution. we also hope that this reading will help demonstrate to the american people that the house of representatives is dedicated to the constitution and the system it establishes for limited government and the protection of individual liberty. the text we are reading today reflects the changes to the document made by the 27 amendments to it. those portions superseded by amendment will not be read. in order to ensure fairness to all those interested in participating, we have asked members to line up to be recognized on a first come first serve basis. i will recognize members based on this guidance. each member will approach the podium and read the passage laid out for him or her.

in order to ensure relative parody and fairness, i may recognize members out of order to ensure bipartisanship and balance. additionally, becausef his long-terleadership on civil rights issues, i will recognize congressman john lewis of georgia out of order to read the 13th amendment. i thank the members of both parties in advance for their participation in this historic event and i will begin this historic reading by reading the preamble to the constitution. we the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america.

it's now my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from illinois mr. enyart. mr. enyart: article 1, section 1, all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested a congress of the united states, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives. mr. goodlatte: i n yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. mr. walberg:section 2, the house of representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the

most numerous branch of the state legislature. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. lamalfa. mr. lamalfa:no person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of 25 years and been seven years a citizen of the united states, andho shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen. the actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the congress of the united states and within every subsequent term of 10 years in each manner by law they direct. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from illinois,

mr. lipinski. mr. lipinski: the number of representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000, but each state shall have at least one representative, and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of new hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, massachusetts eight, rhode island and providence plantations one, connecticut five, new york six, new jersey four, pennsylvania eight, delaware one, maryland six, virginia 10, north carolina ive, south caro five, south carolina five, and georgia three. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from arizona, mr. barber. mr. barber:when vacancies

happen in the representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies. the house of representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers, and shall have the sole power of impeachment. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from florida, mr. desantis. mr. desantis: section 3, the senate of the united states shall be composed of two senators from each state for six years and each senator shall have one vote. immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes.

mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from virginia, the majority leader, mr. cantor. mr. cantor:the seats of the senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and of the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. walz. mr. walz: no person shall be a senator who shall not have attained the age of 30 years and been nine years a citizen of the united states. and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall

be chosen. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from arizona, mr. franks. mr. franks: the vice president of the united states shall be president of the senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. the senate shall choose their other officers, and also a president pro tempore, in the absence of the vice president, or when he shall exercise the office of president of the united states. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the minority whip, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. mr. hoyer: the senate shall have the sole

power to try all impeachments. when sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. en the president of the united states is tried, the chief justice shall preside, and no person shall be convicted wiout the concurrence of 2/3 of the members present. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from south carolina, mr. duncan. mr. duncan: judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the united states, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment, according to law.

mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from california,. >> the times, places and manner for holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof, but the congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins. mr. collins: section 5, each house shall be the judge of the

elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each house may provide. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from american samoa, mr. faleomavaega. mr. faleomavaega: each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of 2/3, expel member. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn.

mr. lamborn: each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy, and the yeas and nays of the members of either house on any question shall, at the desire of 1/5 of those present, be entered on the journal. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from new york, mr. maffei. mr. maffei: neither house during the session of congress shall without the consent of the other adjourn for more than he three days nor to any place than that in which the two houses shall be sitting. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. vala dayo.

mr. valakao: section , the senators and representatives shall receive a compensation for their services to be aconcerned by law, and paid out of the treasury of the united states. they shall in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses. and in going to and returning from the same and for any speech or debate in either house they shall not be questioned in any other place. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt. mr. holt:no senator or representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the united states, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall

have been increased during such time, and no person holding any office under the united states, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx. ms. foxx:all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of representatives, but the senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills. every bill which shall have passed the house of representatives and the senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the president of the united states. if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall retu it, with his objections to that

house in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. conaway. mr. conaway:if after such reconsideration two thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sen together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that house, it shall become a law. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from washington is ms. dell bene ms. dell bene:but in all such

cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett. mr. garrett:if any bill shall not be returned by the president within ten days -- sundays excepted -- after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to

the gentlewoman from massachusetts, ms. tsongas. ms. tsongas:every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the senate and house of representatives may be necessary, except on a question of adjournment, shall be presented to the president of the united states, and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be re-passed by two thirds of the senate and house of representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from south calina, mr. wilson. mrwilson:section 8 the congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united states, but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the

united states, mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. mr. green: to borrow money on the credit of the united states, to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and th the indian tribes, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the united states, mr. goodlatte: i n yield to the gentleman from florida, mr. nugent. mr. nugent:to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures, to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities

and current coin of the united states, to establish post offices and post roads, to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries, mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from california, mr. bera. mr. bera:to constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme court, to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations, to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water, to raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that u shall be for a longer term than two years,

mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. grfith. mr. griffith:to provide and matain a navy, to make rules for the government anregulation of the land and naval forces, to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in theervice of the united states, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress, mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentlewoman from californi ms. lee. ms. lee: to exercise exclusive

legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district, not exceeding 10 miles square, as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of congress, become the seat of the government of the united states, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yardsand other needful buildings, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the united states, or in any department or officer thereof. mr. good lat: i now yield --

mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga. mr. huizenga:section 9 the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding $10.00 for each person. the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from california, mr. takano. mr. takano:no capitation, or

other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported fr any state. no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another, nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from florida, mr. yoho. mr. yoho:no money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law, and a regular statement and account

of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. no title of nobility shall be granted by the united states, and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. mr. goodlatte: i now yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. mr. davis:section 10 no state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation, grant letters of marque and reprisal, coin money, emit bills of credit, make any thing but gold and silver coin a

tender in payment of debts, pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. no state shall, without the consent of the congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws, and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the united states, and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the congress. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from north dakota, mr.

cramer. mr. cramer:no state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. article ii section 1 the executive power shall be vested in a president of the united states of america. he shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the vice president, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows -- mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. veesy.

mr. veasey:each state sll appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in t congress, but no senator or representative, or person holdg anffice of trust or profit under the united stes, shall be appointed an elector. the congress may determine the time of choosing the electors and the day on which they shall give their vot which day shall be the same throughout the united states. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from colorado, mr. tipton. mr. tipton: no person except a

natural born citizen or a citizen of the united states at the time of the adoption of this constitution shall be eligible to the office of president. neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of 35 years and been 14 years a resident within the united states. the president shall at stated times receive for his services compensation which shall neither be increased or diminished during the period for which he is elected and shall not receive any other money. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. o'rourke. mr. o'rourke: he shall take the

following oath or affirmation i do solemnly swear or affirm that i will faithfully execute the office of the president of the united states and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the united states. section 2, the president shall be commander in chief of the army and navy of the united states and of the militia of the several states when called into actual service of the united states. he may require the opinion in writing of the principal officer in each of the executive departments upon any subject relating to the duties of the respective offices and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the united states except in cases of impeachment. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. mr. gosar:he shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of

the senate, to make treaties, provide 2/3 of the senators present concur, and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme court and all other officers of the united states whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for and whi shall be established by law. but e congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper in the president alone, in the courts of law or in the heads of departments. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. huffman. mr. huffman: the president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

section 3, he shall from time to time give to the congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both houses or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman om alabama, mr. rogers. mr. rogers: he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers, he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed and shall commission all the officers of the united states. the president, vice president and all civil officers of the united states shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes

and misdemeanors. the judicial power of the united states shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may from time to time ordain and establish. the judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold theioffices during good behavior and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance office. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentlewoman from california, the minority leader, ms. pelosi. ms. pelosi: the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this constitution, the laws of the

united states and treaties made or which shall be made under their authority. to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, to controversies to which the united states shall be a party, to controversies between two or more states, between citizens of a different state, between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. in all cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. in all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as e congress shall make.

mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. flores. mr. flores: the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury, and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed, but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the congress maby law have directed. section 3, treason against the united states, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. no person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or on confession in open court. the congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption

of blood or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. swalwell. sorry. the gentleman from california, mr. swalwell. mr. swalwell: article 4, section 1, full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. and the congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedis shall be proved, and the effect thereof. section 2, the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. a person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled,

be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from ohio, mr. gibbs. mr. gibbs: new states shall be admitted into this union but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the congress. the congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the united states, and nothing in this constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the united states, or of any particular state. section 4, the united states shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of

government and shall ptect each of them against invasion, and on application of the legislative or of the executive, when the legislature cannot be convened, against domestic violence. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. hultgren. mr. hultgren: article 5. the congress, whenever 2/3 of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or on the application of the legislatures of 2/3 of the several states shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which,n either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of 3 of the several states or by convention

in 3/4 thereof as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the congress, provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article, and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott. mr. scott: article 6. all debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoptn of this constitution shall be as valid against the united states under this constitution, as under the confederation. this constitution and the laws of the united states which shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the united

states, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby. anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. the senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the united states and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution, but no religious test shallver be required as a qualification to any office or public trust unr the united states. mrgoodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. holding. mr. holding: article 7. the ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the states so ratifying the same. the unanimous consent of the states present the 17th day of septemr in the year of our

lord of 1787 and of the independence of the united states of america the 12th in witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names, george washington, president and deputy from virginia, delaware -- george read, gunning bedford, jr., john dickinson, richard bassett, jacob broom maryland - james mchenry, daniel of st. thomas jenifer, daniel carroll virginia -- john blair, james madison, jr. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from iowa, mr. king. mr. king: north carolina --

william blount, richard dobbs spaight, hugh williamson . south carolina -- john rutledge, charles cotesworth pinckney, charles pinckney, pierce butler georgia -- william few, abraham baldwin new hampshire -- john langdon, nicholas gilman massachusetts -- nathaniel gorham, rus king. from connecticut --, william samuel johnson, roger sherman. new york -- alexander hamilton . new jersey -- will livingston, david brearley, william paterson, jonathan dayton. pennsylvania -- benjamin franklin, thomas mifflin, robert morris, george clymer, thomas fitzsimons, jared ingersoll, james wilson, governor morris. mr. goodlatte: i yieldo the gentleman from ksas, mr.

yoder. mr. yoder: amendment 1, congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government to redress of grievances. amendment 2, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. amendment 3, no soldier shall in time of peace be quartered at any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from kentucky, mr. barr. mr. barr:amendment iv

the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. amendment v no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger, nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness

against himsf, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just coensation. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows. mr. meadows: amendment vi in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an imparti jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall ha been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his

favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. mrgoodlatte: i yield to the gentlewoman from kentucky, mrs. he at this. mrs. esty:amendment vii in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no factried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the united states, than according to the rules of the common w. . good clat: i yield to the gentleman from new mexico, mr. pearce. mr. pearce:amendment viii excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines

imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. amendment ix the enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. amendment x the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserv to the states respectively, or to the people. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the ntleman from virginia, mr. hurt. mr. hurt: amendment xi the judicial power of the united states shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the united states by citizens of another state, or citizens or subjects of any

foreign state. amendment xii the electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for president and vice-president, one of whom, at least, sll not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as president, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as vice-president, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as president, and of all persons voted for as vice-president, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the united states, directed to the president of the senate. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry. mr. perry:the president of the senate shall, in the presen of the senate and house of

representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted. the person having the greatest number of votes for president, shall be the president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the hhest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted r as president, the house of representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the president. but in choosing the president, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote. a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. pit inker -- pittinger. million pittinger: the pson

having the greatest number of votes as vice president shall be the vice president. and suchp member be the majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the senate shall choose the vice president. a quorum for the purpose will consist of two members of the whole the majority of senators and majority of the wholeumber shall be necessary to a choice, but no person actually eligible to the office of president shall be eligible to tha of vice president of the united states. mr. goodlatte: my pleasure yield to the gentleman from georgia, mr. lewis. mr. lewis:he 13th amendment.

neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the united states, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from arkansas, mr. womack. mr. womack:amendment xiv section 1 all persons born or naturalized in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the united states and ofhe state

wherein they reside. no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. section 2 representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding indians not taxed. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly. mr. connolly: section 3, no

person shall be a senator or representative in congress or ector of president and vice president or hold any office, civil or military, under the united states or under any state who having previously taken an oath as a member of congress or as an officer of the united states. but when the right to vote at eelection for choice of electors of president and vice president of the united states, representatives in congress, the executive, and judicial offices of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state being 21 years of age and citizens of the united states, or in any way abridged except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of presentation therein shall be reduced to the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens 21 years of age in such state.

mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from florida, mr. ross. mr. ross: or as a member of any state legislature or as an judicial officer of any state to support of constitution of the united states shall have engaged in insurrection erebellion against the same or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof congre may by a vote of 2/3 of each house remove such disability. section 4, the validity of public debt of the united states authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentlemafrom california, mr. denham. mr. denham:but neither the

united states nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the united states, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave, but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void. ction 5 the congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. amendment xv section 1 the right of citizens of the united states to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. mr. goodlatte: it's now my pleasure to yield to the majority whip, the gentleman from california, mr. mccarthy. mr. mccarthy:section 2 the congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

amendment xvi the congress shall have wer to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. amendment xvii the senate of the united states shall be composed of two senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each senator shall have one vote. the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures. when vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from oklahoma, mr.

langston. mr. langston: provided the legislature of any state my may provide the executive there of to make appointments until people fill the vacancies. this amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the constitution. the right of the citizens of the united states to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or by any state on account of sex. congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from tennessee, mr. fleischmann. mr. fleischmann: amount 20, section 1. the terms of the president and

the vice president shall end at on on the 20th day of january and the terms of senators and representatives at noon on the third day of january of the yearin which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified. and the terms of their successors shall then begin. section 2, the congress shall assemble at least once in every year and such meeting shall begin at noon on the third day of january unless they shall by law appoint a different day. mr. goodlatte: i yield to t gentlewoman from florida, ms. ros-lehtinen. ms. ros-lehtinen: section 3, if, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the president, the president-elect shall have died, the vic

president-elect shall become president. if a president shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the president-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president-elect shall shall act as president until a president shall have qualified, and the congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a president elect nor a vice president shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as president, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a president or vice president shall have qualified. mr. goodlatte: yield to the gentlewoman from indiana, mrs. brooks. mrs. brooks: section 4, the congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the house of representatives may choose a president whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the

persons from whom the senate may choose a vice president whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them. section 5, sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of october following the ratification of this article. section 6, this article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the constitution by the legislatures of 3/4 of several states within seven years from the date of its submission. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from alabama, mr. bonner. mr. bonner: amendment 21, section 1, the 18th article of the amendment of the constitution of the united states is hereby repealed. section 2, the transportation

or importation into any state, territory or possession of the united states for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. section 3, this article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the constition, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the congress. mr. goodlatte: i am pleased to yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. mr. gohmert: amendment 22, section 1, no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president or acted as president more than two years of a term

to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of president more than once. but this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of president when this article was proposed by congress and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of president or acting as president during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of president or acting as president during the remainder of such term. section 2, this article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the constitution by the legislatures of 3/4 of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the congress. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from kansas, mr. huelskamp. mr. huelskamp: amendment 23,

section 1, the district constituting the seat of government of the united states shall appoint in such manner as congress may direct, a number of electors of president and vice president equal to the whole number of setors and representatives in congress to which the district would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state. they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of president and vice president, to be electors appointed by a state, and they shall meet in the district and perform ch duties as provided by the 12th article of amendment. section 2, the congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry. mr. fortenberr amendment 24 of the constitution. section 1, the right of citizens of the united states to vote in any primary or other election for president or vice president, for electors for president or vice president, or for senator or rresentative in congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the united states or any state by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax. section 2, the congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. amendment 25 othe constitution. section 1, in case of the removal of the president from office or of his death or resignation, the vice president shall become president. section 2, whenever there is a

vacancy in the office of the vice president, the president shall nominate a vice president who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of congress. section 3, whenever the president transmits to the president pro tempore of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the vice president as acting president. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from maryland, mr. delaney. mr. delaney. section -- mr. delaney: section 4,

whenever the vice president and a majority of either the principal officers othe executive departments or of such other body as congress may by law provide, transmit to the president pro tempore of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives their written declaration that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the vice president shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting president. thereafter, when the president transmits to the president pro tempore of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of h office unless the vice president and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the president pro tempore of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives their written declaration that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. thereupon congress shall decide the issue, assembling within 48

hours for that purpose if not in session. mr. goodlatte: i yield to mr. salmon. mr. salmon: 48 hours for that purpose if not in session. if the congress, within 21 days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if congress is not in session, within 21 days after congss is required to assemble, determines by 2/3 vote of both houses that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the vice president shall continue to discharge the same as acting president. otherwise, the president shall resume the powers and duties of his office. amendment 26, section 1, the right ofitizens of the united states who are 18 years

of age or older to vote shall not be denied or abridged by thenitestates or by any state on account of age. section 2, the congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. mr. goodlatte: i yield to the gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. mr. davis: thank you, madam spker. no law -- this is the 27th amendment. no law varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives, shall take effect, until an election representatives shall have intervened. mr. goodlatte: and that concludes the reading of the united states constitution. i want to thank the gentleman

who arrived and were available but we ran out of constitution before we ran out of readers >> president obama will unveil a new set of gun-control proposals following the newtown, conn., shootings.this week and is the presidential inoculation. c-span will give you live coverage starting with a look back at the president's 2009 a not little speech. the official swearing-in is before noon. monday, the public cannot rural

ceremony.-- cannot rurainaugura >> student video entries with your message to the president on how to do. get them to c-span by this friday for your chance at the grand prize of $5,000 for more details, go to studentcam.org. >> next, a conversation on the second amendment. we will hear from author adam winkler. this is about 20 minutes.

>> he is certainly one of the great emerging voices, insightful and influential of the nature of the meaning of the second amendment in the wake of the supreme court's decision, so thank you for joining me in this effort. i want to thank the organizers, everyone from the president down to staff that has organized a terrific and hopefully impact full conference. i am not going to talk with any powerpoints. as a law professor i do not like the focus on anyone but me. i am here to talk about the amendment to the constitution and what it says about major reform proposals being considered in the wake of the newtown massacre. as you probably know, the second amendment provides a well- regulated militia being

necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. it is almost as if james madison just discovered this wonderful new thing, the comma, and wanted to put it in there as many times as possible, and is as confused americans as they try to figure out what was meant by this cryptic amendments, breaking up ideas. a sure sign of this confusion comes from a lot of the public statements we have seen since president barack obama said it was time for meaningful action to reduce gun violence, because what we have seen this many people argue the president is taking away our rights. i call this confusion, because many people apparently have not been reading the court cases that interpret the second amendment and tell us what it

means. as larry and i argue in our contribution, the most popular proposals being considered today are likely constitutional. that is not to say there are not any questions about any of them, but they are likely to be upheld by the supreme court should they be enacted. from background checks to restrictions on sale of high- capacity magazines and even a ban on assault weapons, we think it is likely the supreme court will uphold these provisions. in defense of those who do seem confused about the nature of our second amendment rights, the supreme court has not done a great job of clarifying what is the scope of our second amendment rights. as most of you know, in 2008, the supreme court held that the

second amendment protects the right of individuals to have guns for personal protection. two years after that case, it struck down a lot in washington, d.c., that banned handguns and made it unlawful for you to use a shotgun or rifle for self- defense. two years after that the supreme court held the second amendment similarly applied to state and local governments and effectively declared chicago's ban on handguns unconstitutional. advocates make it clear exactly how the courts should go about interpreting the second amendment and applying it to other gun-control laws. it is one thing to identify a

right in the constitution, but where the rubber hits the road is figuring out which laws are constitutional and which laws are unconstitutional, so they asked the supreme court to adopt clear standards so they can apply the second amendment in the tidal wave of lawsuits but was sure to come if the supreme court found that an individual right to bear arms. the tidal wave came, but the clarity did not. we have seen a huge number of cases, a little more than 300 federal court decisions on constitutionality of a wide variety of gun-control laws since 2008, and they refuse to articulate a clear standard of review and said, we will address the questions as they come about, but the supreme court did provide some guidance as to the nature and meaning of the second amendment and how to approach gun-control questions.

the court said it was not a right to have any gun anytime, anywhere you wanted. it was not a libertarian license for you to have whatever gun you choose to have. the supreme court made clear the second amendment is not unlimited, and looking at history and tradition as guideposts, the supreme court recognized many gun-control laws have been upheld under this amendment over american history. they pointed out the majority upheld restrictions on concealed ann curry firearms. the court also said not everything that could be considered restrictions on concealed firearms.

this included weapons in use for common purposes, not dangerous and unusual weapons like machine guns, and perhaps the most important question, the supreme court said nothing should be taken to cast out longstanding provisions. when you think about it, that counters probably the majority of gun control laws. the court said all of these laws are lawful, and pointed out this list was not meant to be exhaustive and pointed out there are other measures law enforcement can take. with this limited guidance the lower courts have confronted this tidal wave. i mention 300 cases today, but only a small fraction of those federal court cases have invalidated the challenged laws.

the vast majority of gun-control laws have been upheld and rely on the decisions. we are seeing an emerging framework for analyzing gun- control laws that has become the norm in the majority of circuits that have addressed the issue. it is essential for the courts to undertake a two-step process in analyzing constitutionality of a gun control law. they determine if a particular law being challenged, if that burdens activities within the scope of the second amendment. the court said the corps' second amendment right is the right to have a functional firearm in the home. not everyone can be said to fall within the scope of the second amendment. for instance, bans on felons or the mentally ill. that obviously restricts the

right for someone to have a gun in their home for self-defense, but a court suggests that felons and mentally ill are outside the scope of the second amendment. they do not have a right to have a firearm in their home for self-defense. they are outside the second amendment. a lot of courts have universally held restrictions on guns, possessions of guns by people with restraining orders are also constitutional. many of those courts have said those people are outside the scope of the second amendment, so the law did not burden second amendment rights at all in these cases. we might also think of restrictions on machine guns or silencers, which are not thought to be arms under the purposes of the second amendment, not typically used for self-defense purposes and not subject to the second amendment dispute. if some activity is regulated by a lot like a ban on silencers or

machine guns, the law is upheld, and the case is over. if a law does burden activity under the second amendment, the court asks the second question, and i ask how severe is that? they determine if the law is sufficiently well-designed to serve the government ends. this has two steps, weighing the burden and analysis of ends and means. is the law well-designed to meet those needs? how is a lot of burden? if it nullifies the right to have a functional firearm in the

home, it is likely invalid, no matter what, so we have seen handgun bans in washington, d.c., and chicago struck it down. as they apply to law abiding citizens, a law that bans people from having access to these weapons is unconstitutional. maybe restrictions from having firearms in public housing is likely to be the type of law courts would say is a severe burden on second amendment rights and likely invalid. very minor burdens, not a significant burden at all, but the court would say it is likely the government does not need especially strong reasons to uphold such a law.

these might be thought of as incidental burdens. it is often the case you can restrict our rights with what are known as incidental burdens as a way to ensure those who exercise the rights are entitled, so sometimes you will hear that is not how we treat the first amendment. let's think about how we treat the right to vote for the right to marry. those fundamental rights are protected by our constitution. the court says you can require people to register so they can vote. you can require people to get a license before they get married. these are incidental burden is the supreme court says that do not stop people from exercising the right to vote or getting married. where the law is an intermediate burden, little justification has been made. the vast majority of gun control laws fall within the middle ground.

they are not a severe burden, and they are not an incidental burden. they fall within the middle range, and courts say where a law does burden the second amendment they are under scrutiny. independent scrutiny is used throughout international law. it basically asks two questions. for the law to survive it has to substantially further a government interest. the government interest has to be when imported government interest, and the law has to further about -- has to be an important government interest, and the law has to further that.

the important government interest is public safety, reduction of gun violence. these are some of the most compelling interest the government can have, and when intermediate scrutiny is applied, even burdens on one's right to have a firearm, the first prong of intermediate scrutiny is easily met. to answer the second question, does this law substantially further the interested public safety, courts look to see did lawmakers have adequate evidence to support the idea this law would further public safety? that is why so much work being done at this conference is important with regard to what happens with gun-control in the future. in new york one of the houses passed a major gun-control law. i am sure it will be challenged under the second amendment, and it is the research produced the help satisfy the courts there is a substantial relationship between a gun control and reform

and reduction of public safety. how does this emerging affect apply to these proposals? we might think of universal background checks. closing the gun show loophole, it is a private sale loophole person to person sales to occur without a background check. does this burden protect a second amendment activity? not likely. it serves as a simple screen that is used to determine who is entitled to exercise this right and who is not entitled to exercise the rights.

very much equivalent to what we see with the right to vote. it requires people to register in advance, and the burden is most likely to be an incidental burden just like registration requirements. it is not a severe burden on a gun purchaser. it happens quickly without much trouble. even if the burden is thought to be more severe, this law is well designed to deprive criminals and the mentally ill access to firearms. according this requirement matches of the recognition of the legitimacy of laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of firearms. what about assault weapons?

to determine if assault weapons are arms protected by the second amendment, we need to know if the firearms are in common use or if they are dangerous and unusual weapons. that was a dichotomy set up by the united states supreme court. if they are in common use like handguns we have to go to the second step of the analysis. if they are dangerous and unusual weapons like machine gun, the analysis would stop there. assault weapons are pretty commonplace. they become popular and firearms in a gun rights community. there are apparently tens of millions of these firearms out there, arguably they are commonly used, but one argument is while they are common they are not commonly used for the core purpose of the second amendment, self-defense. they are poor self-defense weapons. it is hard to maneuver in the